Read User Reviews and Submit your own for The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth II on PC

GameDogsLeader

Sep 27, 2010

10

The Lord of the Rings, Battle for Middle-earth II, Is an Extremely good RTS game. That any RTS player should give a try. Its campaign is good good with voices and music. Outstanding game play I never get tired of going back and playing a match in multiplayer or even a little of campaign. With the Create a Hero and War of the Ring It gives more game play. The create a hero is Amazing I would be sitting there making heroes with strategy's for each one, But sooner or later I would have 100 heroes and never use a majority of my strategy's. As the game is great go play it and if you don't like it then you aren't a fan of Lotr. Well thats fine but that dose not mean its not a great game. The balance is very good but still some mess ups there.… Expand

Helpful?

1 of 1 users said yes
All this user's reviews

MattJohns

Feb 11, 2006

1

Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth II is indeed a great disappointment. I was expecting to see new improvements in game-play, Instead they side stepped, turning the series into a Warcraft III clone that offers little to no substance for fans of the original. It is truly a great example of why EA is not a leader and innovator in the genre and can really only copy what’s been done by some of the more talented developers. I can’t honestly recommend this game to anyone who enjoys RTS games on a regular basis. If you’re a fan of mediocrity and love telling a ton of units to attack for the win, maybe this is for you, but the game left me with nothing more than disappointment.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JS

Feb 14, 2006

0

Battle for Middle Earth II is so incredibly awesome (insert sarcasm here) I like the realism, where a stray dwarven axe flying through my base takes out five buildings on it's way off the map. It's also cool to play a game where all the super powers are less interesting rip-offs of C&C Generals:Zero Hour generals powers. Weak sauce.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JulesV

Feb 18, 2006

0

Wow! The original B4ME was fun, but this one went downhill fast. I have to say I've never been so disappointed. I was really hoping this one would eclipse the original but the game feels like the team just stopped caring. I give it a complete 0. What happened EA?

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

RoganLaw

Mar 6, 2006

1

This game is BAD! Come on. You can't put archers on walls! That is so stupid? Rohan and Gondor together, it's bloody idiotic. Who wants to play a game where your buildings are crushed in like 5 seconds? WOTR Mode? Terrible I can't believe it! It's like playing a long board game. Then you have campaign god it's short as hell and very bad, so bad that it's only 16 levels. So you can’t complain about it being repetitive. LOL! And the campaign also dose not even touch the Lord of the ring's story it's just sad very sad. Lastly, you are fighting a game.dat crash every 10 minutes, who wants to play a game that crashes all the time. Now I am stuck with this turd.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

anonymous

Mar 12, 2006

5

hey well the truble is this game does look v.gd just a pity it keeps crashing on me. ive duble cheked my pc n it meets all the requirments and the fign is i can actually do and watch everthing. i can even create me own hero. but when i try and play the actual game it crashs wtf. am i da only person this is appening 2????

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

rb

Mar 19, 2006

2

i've installed the game and it didn't even crash so that's the first point i give for ea games. graphics look nice so that's the second point the game is full of bugs, campaign is too short, quality is nice except from the flickering, tactics are just who's the first one to rush. and balance is extremely bad. for 4 armies in bfme1 it took ea games like a year for a fair balance, how long will it take now. and when will the last bug be resolved? maybe one day ea games will release a good game which is actually finished but most likely i will be dead aready when that happens… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

MartinPop

Mar 29, 2006

1

This game is inferiour to the original from absolutely all points of view. The original actually looks better at the same settings on my computer. BFME II can look better if i settle for a slide-showing throught the game , i have to give EA that. I wonder how come the gamers hate it but the reviewers love it....$$$...

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BrettHiser

May 31, 2006

10

This game is about 50 times better then the tother one. You can choose from 6 diffrent armies. The only bad part about the game is the story line in campaign mode. Good mode is crap and to easy. Evil mode is harder and more of a challenge. ps if you want a kick@$$ army go for the goblins. pps dont wait for an army youll die right away.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ChrisC

Nov 13, 2006

0

Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash CrashCrash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash Crash I would give a rating on the graphics if I could actually see the game.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

jonm

Dec 17, 2006

10

Ahhhh man this game is sweet!!!! Man im an idiot i sold it!!!!!! Crap!!!!! but hey its cool i got another from my friend he hates it but i love it!! I see a mojor improvement in this game its sweet. the bad thing is my computer it wont work on it only if i turn off the visual featrers. well i still like it. i think you should buy it!!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

MikeF.

Feb 28, 2006

2

I was expecting this game to be outstanding. The graphics seemed awesome and the videos boasted some very intense action. An RTS set in the LOTR universe with large, epic battles, and touted improvements over the first BFME seemed extraordinarily amazing. However, after actually playing BFME 2, I quickly found out that the graphics were very mediocre on a mid level machine causing lots of lag. Despite this, the gameplay seemed extremely lacking as well. Simplistic controls, buttons, and commands made the entire system immensely very watered down. The balance was horrible, destroying bases took seconds. In addition the game mechanics were changed to be more like C&C Generals and a very bad clone of Warcraft III. There is no real-innovation; only lots of glitz and special effects. I’m upset that I wasted my money on this poor imitation. Stay away from this mediocre RTS or at least download the demo first. There are much better RTS games out there including Dawn of War, Age of Empires III and Star Wars Empire at War.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

RickP.

Feb 28, 2006

2

The game looks amazing, but the gameplay is boring a sterile. The battles are not even close to being as epic as the first BFME. The gameplay is simialr to C&C Generals and is geared towards the hardcore multiplayer RTS guy. Bleh! You think EA would have tried to innovate instead of side stepping. The best thing this game has going for it is the "create a hero" mode which is cool. That�39;s about it.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

SamOmera

Mar 1, 2006

0

A carbon copy of existing (and past) RTS games. No real innovation, just a bad ripoff of C&C Gnerals. They should take the "create a hero" mode and patch it into BFME 1 since it is a better game that at least attempted new ways to play.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ErikG.

Mar 2, 2006

0

BFME 2 is really nothing more than a clone of Warcraft III. There is no real innovation, just the same old RTS game. Does't this get old EA? Being an RTS vet, I was really expecting them to innovate and offer some new ways to play, but I was sadly disappointed. The AI is also very poorly done and the game balance was atrocious. Summary: There are far better games out there (WarCraft III, Dawn of War, C&C Generals, Star Wars Empire At War). Create a hero is about the only thing this game has going for it, but it does not warrant $50. I definitly recommend downloading the demo and playing before buying this.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 1 users said yes

PaulD.

Mar 2, 2006

10

Amazing! Finally a Great RTS!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JoshK.

Mar 3, 2006

9

This game is loads of fun...and as many of the reviews mention, it definitely has stunning visuals. What could be cooler than throwing yourself in the middle of the action in Middle-earth?

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

T.Miller

Mar 3, 2006

0

Awful. Beautiful, but awful. If you want a game with half the innovation as the first B4ME then go ahead and get it. If you want to be able to play the game past the single player mode, then buy something else.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JoshT.

Mar 6, 2006

0

Absolute crap! The game-play is down-right boring and has been done to death. When the game is not crashing, you are simply building a lot of units and sending them to attack. No strategy, just build attack. Did I mention that this game is always crashing? The design seems to be built around the idea that you just click to win, it annoys the hell out of me and sad to see that this is all EA can come up with. People that actually say they like this game for it's depth of tactics are down right monkeys. Avoid this game, if you want a good traditional game try Dawn of War or C&C Generals if you want something new try Empire at War. EA piece of Junk!… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

TadH.

Mar 6, 2006

0

I was a big fan of BFME. It was such a simple RTS- but it got the biggest thing right... Gameplay. Building was simple, but the battles were exciting and could see-saw back and forth based on one good or bad move. That is why I am so confused on how they screwed the sequel up so badly. Was the project taken over by a different design team or something? The new build system is atrocious. You have to spread your resources out at spanned intervals in order to get anything out of them, which forces you to build a sprawling base very early. So, what does the AI do? Send in units on suicide raids that completely ignore your armies and run around destroying all your resources. So you can either turtle, and try to frantically defend all your spread out bases, or try to chase his units down, meanwhile hes building up... or lastly... rush him first. That is what is wrong with BFME2. This is the only viable option. It is the only option that works... so every game becomes a VERY predictable game of who can rush who first. After teh first 10 minutes of each game, you know whether you are going to win or lose. There is nothing fun about this. At all. And just in case you wanted to play these meaningless skirmishes over and over, you can head over to the War of the Ring mode. This great feature allows you to play skirmishes over... and over... and over... and guess what? Your armies dont transfer from one battle to the next. Your buildings either. Its the same tired excuse for strategy tacked onto RTS that other games have tried. Note to designers: DONT WASTE YOUR TIME. The campaign is forgettable. Although I havent heard from anyone else, Im having significant graphical issues (flickering), although its still playable. Long story short, it looks like BFME, but it feels like a budget game rushed out to turn a quick buck. It feels unfinished, unbalanced, and worst of all... poorly thought out. My guess is they tried something different, and by the time they realized it wasnt working, it was too late to fix it. They should have kept the gameplay of BFME intact, and just added content and called it an expansion. Instead they did a hackjob on a great game and charged me $50 for it.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BradG.

Mar 7, 2006

0

Can EA actually make a game that does not crash? This pile of garabage crashes right out of the box, even if you have a good machine. I had to go down to a LAN center near my house to play it, even then some of there machiens would crash. When I did play it was nothing more than a crudy clone of warcraft III. I refuse to give this game anything above a zero, it looks great in the screen shots, but I guess EA never wanted anyone to play because of the game.dat error. Poor poor quality EA.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

AndyO.

Mar 7, 2006

9

A huge improvement over the original, free building instead of static building really leads to bigger challenges. Not sure what's going on with some users who are getting Crashes, I've had the game running on my secondary system for about 3 days now. If your system is crashing, and the computers at your local LAN centers are having problems, you might try cleaning off your hard drive a bit, I won't say what you should clean off, but there are great utilities out there for removing adware and other random spam that you can pick up from "Internet Sites". Good game EA, I love the presentation as usual. Couple technical notes, if you have a high end computer, set your Anti-Aliasing to 2x or 4x from Windows desktop, really makes the game quite pretty. Oh, last note, Isengard is a bit overpowered, watchout for high ranking players that only use Isengard, they have amazing resource gathering abilities.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JeffH.

Mar 7, 2006

10

WOW what a great RTS! I have played them all over the years and this is the best of the bunch. Amazing environments, superb gameplay, its all here. My pick for GoTY.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BillyF.

Mar 8, 2006

10

Come on guys! I've had this game since realese day and it's never crashed. You probably just have crappy computers! Just kidding you. It's crashed a bit, but other than that, multiplayer is awesome and I've even made a few friends. It DOES have strategy. I really love this gmae.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JerryP

Mar 9, 2006

9

This is a great addition to the Lord of the rings Series by EA. It is unfortunate that User reviews on meta critic are tainted by people who obviously dont know how to use their computers properly and therefore give the game a low rating. Game runs great, even on older computers.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

SamK.

Mar 9, 2006

9

Nice graphics, great multiplayer, interesting map game. Campaign was short but very LOTR.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

LawrenceK.

Mar 9, 2006

9

From what I see here, between the users that rated both EAW and BfME2, I would have to conclude that the majority of you have no idea what a RTS is supposed to be about. What makes RTS games fun and exciting is the design, the balance, the innovation (the cool things if you will), and the competitive feel of the atmosphere. Let's look at BfME1 for example. The game simply appealed to players that were less experienced with RTS games because of its simplistic money design, its pre-built defense system aka Walls, it's cheap control layout and imbalanced 1-man-army heroes. Was this distasteful for more experienced RTS players? Of course it was. More experienced RTS players rely on heavy resource management in terms of both internal economy and external map control. Both are crucial to the success of the game, as seen in the most successful RTS titles -- those fit for WCG/CPL/GGL..etc. Without the drive of map control aka BfME1, a player only focuses on 1 thing, no multi-tasking if you will. Without the drive for effectively stop your enemys resource income in terms of map control/harrassment is the bane of any experienced RTS gamer. Face it, it's EZ-mode and often times classified as Noob. Take EAW for example, they represent the pinnacle of easy with prebuilt bases, unit structures and an almost infinite amount of resources to whore units from. That's very distasteful for RTS gamers as it almost exterminates one of the building foundations of RTS: The control of money. So BfME1 had that, EAW had it worse, and BfME2 doesn't. That automatically puts them on top of both of those games in terms of money control. You have to expand and fight for your money, or you simply, lose. I know how hard it can be for some newer RTS gamers that need walls to hide behind and think of counters, but for the better players, there's no such barrier. It's simply more appealing because its faster paced both in micro (unit control) and thinking of counters. That's how a RTS game is supposed to be. Look at Starcraft and Warcraft, you don't see any walls or prebuilt armies for you now do you. What has kept those games going is the drive to compete, the drive to become better, and the drive to master your opponent where YOU, the person that can think the fastest, move the fastest and counter the fastest in this new-aged chess will be the victor. No more handicapped bullcrap for you to fall back on -- It's time to play RTS games how it's supposed to be played.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

YkudzA

Mar 9, 2006

10

Great game with awesome multiplayer.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BenC

Mar 9, 2006

9

Don't believe the EA haters that have trouble admitting their corporate scapegoat has delivered another AWESOME game. Everything about this game shines; graphics, audio, presentation, gameplay, license content (Tom Bombadil!), fun factor... it rocks. And to the folks who blame games/companies for their crashes... put 2 and 2 together you morons. How is it that the numerous testers were able to final the game, have multiple reviewers play and review it positively, and the vast majority of users are playing and enjoying the game without issue? How would all that be possible if it "always crashes"? Guess what... it's YOUR POS system at fault. PCs are not consoles folks, you have to maintain and be knowledgable (meeting the system reqs of the game, latest drivers, closed background tasks, free HDD space, running defrag now and then, etc.) Wanna play on the best gaming platform... gotta get wise dudes.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

MatE

Mar 9, 2006

10

I give this game a 10/ 10 It was everything EA promised I have no issues on any of my 10 computers. The game is rich with graphics, has all the units and then some form the LOTR books. Good job EA!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BillyB.

Mar 9, 2006

10

This is a fun game!!! They fixed the stuff that was messed up in the first game and I'm havin a greeeaaaat time.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JeffC.

Mar 9, 2006

10

Super fun. Super cool. It's all I'm playing right now!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

SørenT.

Mar 10, 2006

9

Bfme2 is a huge improvement over Bfme1. The fact that you can build anywhere on the map is possibly the single biggest improvement. The graphics are a joy to look at - it's easy the best looking RTS game on the market at the moment. Competetion is great. EA put in alot of features to promote competitive play and this is what will give Bfme2 a long life. The fact that they implemented a clan system, meaning that your games may be reported automaticly to a clan site with ladders etc., is really inovative compared to the RTS games released in recent years. But take care fellow gamers, the game is addictive as hell. :D… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

RensS.

Mar 10, 2006

10

This is the best RTS game out atm without any doubt. BFME2 is way and way better EaW because it involves strategy depth and micromanagement. EaW lacks with no base building. The micromanagement is there, but the base building -> strategic depth in build orders is missing. In BFME2 there is free building, a dynamic popcap, tons of upgrades. So there is simply way and way more strategic depth in this game. People have WAY more strats to choose from. This is why i choose BFME2 far above EaW. I have to admit that i was really looking forward for EaW and BFME2. But BFME2 got me the 'omfg, i need to pwn now!' feeling. EaW couldn't produce that :( You will find me for a long time on the clan ladders for BFME2! Hope to cya guys there too :D… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

LarsT.

Mar 10, 2006

9

This game is a huge step forward, I've been playing BFME1 for along time and BFME2 improves on many fields in that BFME1 lacked, eg build everywhere, fast-paced, constant action, while still preserving the awesome LOTR-feel. Granted, it's not really balanced yet - but was there every any RTS-game that was balanced at the day of the release? The BFME1 patch-history wasn't the greatest - EA has to prove us that they can do better with BFME2. It looks promising, 2 patches are already announced and should come soon. Though one has heard the word "soon" too often in the process of patching BFME1... ;) Anyway, I enjoy playing BFME2 at lot, I know it will keep me busy for months and I'll enjoy it a lot. It was a game I looked forward to and my expectations were not deceived. :)… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BrenoS.

Mar 10, 2006

10

Best RTS game of the year, and the year is barely started ;) EaW is a pile of crap, and AoE3 is silly and have very flimsy and irrealistic graphics compared to this. Visuals and the award-winning EA sound work are just the icing of the cake though, since the gameplay is amazingly addictive. Playing vs the AI provides a really good challenge (something EA LA hadn't quite got right in previous games) and works as a learning ground for the real-deal, online games. Netcode works smoothly - although Gamespy still suck but it's no big deal - and the tactical action is frantic and relentless from start to finish. A masterpiece.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JoeA.

Mar 10, 2006

10

Great game! Amazing all throughout! I can't get enough! Now I just need the money to own it myself.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ScottR.

Mar 10, 2006

10

One of the top RTS games in recent years, outdoes it's predeccessor in every facet, BfME2 is fast-paced and requires a great amount of strategy. Congratulations EALA, the future looks bright.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

MarioL.

Mar 10, 2006

10

The best RTS game I ever played! Order pizza, I'll be playing a long, long, long, time!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ScottB.

Mar 10, 2006

10

So much better than the original. You actually need some experience to play this game, which some people may not like. Too bad for them, cuz I love it! The graphics are awesome!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JamieM.

Mar 10, 2006

10

Any enthusiast of either Tolkien related games, RTS Gaming or general Online Gaming should definitely get this game. The game has kept some of the elements of the first game, and really built on them and improved both the game dynamics and the strategic depth in the gameplay. You can see that the games are not estranged totally from one another, but the sequel has definitely surpassed any level of skill or fun that the original had. If you liked the original then this game will definitely give you a run for your money, and I can guarantee you'll enjoy it more. Now, if you were very critical of the first game and thought it was lacking in many serious departments (the Hardcore RTS Gamer, for example) then I think you'll be very surprised (in a good way!!) when you try this revamped and all round awesome sequel. The multiplayer is going places. It really is a true contender for inclusion in major LAN tournaments and pro leagues. With a few tweaks that EA have committed to making this game could be the next big thing. [OoE]LeTigre… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JonL.

Mar 10, 2006

9

WHAT WORKS: The biggest improvement found in BFME 2 is the removal of the build plot system. This was a horrible "innovation" which attempted to make base building, an already incredibly simple procedure, even simpler. In doing so it removed player flexibility and depth of strategy. Now that you can build anywhere, you have a wide variety of build orders and build strategies to employ. Game pace is thankfully much more engaging now. A good player can defeat a less skilled player in a reasonable amount of time now. Walls cannot be used as a crutch for those incapable of or too lazy to properly control units. The population cap is now flexible. It's tied into your economy network. The more of the map you control, the more your population cap is increased. This means you must be aggressive and "attack the map" rather than sit in your base and hope you survive without really doing anything to facilitate your own victory. WHAT DOESN'T WORK: There are too many special ring points now. This is the same problem that was seen going from Generals to its expansion pack, Zero Hour. There are too many "cool" point and click powers which take away from the skill needed to tactically defeat your opponent. The economy is a little too "loose". You dont have specific points on the map that are of strategic value. In some ways open space itself is a valuable strategic point but in order for maps to properly supply this, they need to be fairly large which slows down the game pace. Overall Battle for Middle Earth 2 is something that more experienced RTS gamers would like. I know for a fact that many of the people who were disgusted with the simplistic gameplay of BFME 1 are now enjoying the pace and style of gaming found in BFME 2. BFME 2 is a serious improvement over BFME 1. It's still not quite C&C, but it's a very good game that is certainly worth playing.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

JerryO.

Mar 10, 2006

4

Its like ive already played this one, but they have sertanly improved the graphics i like seeing a man fly away when a Catapult hit him. And when they die but the sound is like a bad English accent it does not sound real only like a real English Man and everyone sounds the same... and it took me 5 Hours to make it trough the game, if´you havent played number one buy it if you have played number this is only some new Stories and Missions and better Graphic and no new sound. but if you loved the books buy the game and play it i think it was okay.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 1 users said yes

NellyP.

Mar 10, 2006

2

Ok, I tried like heck to love this game. I never played the original but heard it got some pretty good reviews. I picked this game up the day it came out and installed it. Let me tell you this game is the opposite of fun and exciting. There is almost nothing special about this game that makes me want to play I uninstalled it about three days after I bought it and now use the CD as a coaster. Let me preface this part by saying that I play a game called Dawn of War and the expansion Winter Assault, so this may be why I am so spoiled. The battles in BFME2 are downright boring, non-exciting yawnfest's. I feel like I am baking a cake when I am amassing my armies. The actually fighting itself is uninspired and doesn't make me feel involved at all. The strategic portion of the game seems clumsy and not well done, as well as the tactical. I love the graphics of the game and the sounds are nice otherwise this game would be a floater in the swimming pool if you know what I mean. If you seriously want a good RTS with action, story, competitive online play. Then do yourself a favor and don't get this game, get Dawn of War, Winter Assault, and the new expansion that is coming out soon.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Mantis

Mar 11, 2006

10

Awsome rts.. no crashes here.. and yes i am on ultra high graphics.. smooth as a baby's butt.. epic battles are awesome.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

[Anonymous]

Mar 11, 2006

0

Just so those of you know, I have a GeForce 6200 256 mb video card. 2.99Ghz intel celeron. 1 GB Hard Drive. This is more than the minimum requirements and just under to turn on all visual featres according to EA. What do I get out of the game. Freezing and crashing. So if you want to waste $50 bucks on this game go ahead. If you dont or you have a system that better than what I listed then take the gamble. This game is nothing more than eye candy and a piece of crap. Very disappointed in EA for rushing this game at the expense of the consumer.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

RobB.

Mar 14, 2006

10

A significant improvement over the first if you ask me. Although not perfect, the strategical depth is much greater and you finally have an effective counter system to avoid a lot of the frustrations encountered in BFME 1. Graphics are terrific, it's great eye candy when you can turn them up to high or ultra high. The battle pace is pretty constant and the removal of build plots really gives you a lot more freedom in your play style as well. I really enjoyed this game a lot.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BradH.

Mar 19, 2006

2

The original Battle for Middle-Earth was created to be something different in the RTS world. They changed the conventional menu system to "build plots" and ready built castles with fortifiable walls. With no builders to worry about, building could be done directly from a “build plot" via a pop-up menu. Citadels served as the center and most important structure of your settlements and protecting your citadel was paramount to securing your base. It seemed simple, but that only allowed for a richer story and more structured, interesting game play. When EALA first announced Battle for Middle-Earth II, they stated it would "revolutionize" the brand; they decided it would be more appropriate to release a sequel. But, instead of moving forward with the genre, it seems they have taken a step backward. We find ourselves, once again, having to worry about our ever-important builder unit as we chaotically search for the best place to build up a base before the enemy begins its ceaseless attacks. The now almost standard RTS build menus are back along the side of the screen. And we, once more, have to place out a system of easily conquered walls and towers, all the while having to worry about that one opening in the rocks where we haven't had a chance to build a wall yet. The wall system is utterly useless and when coupled with the ancient A.I. makes for a very un-enjoyable experience. The graphics are very pretty if you have a high end machine (3 GHz, 1 gig of ram, and a 256 MB video card) if not, you’re stuck in low detail and crappy graphics. The game was just a pure let down.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

MattW.

Mar 21, 2006

9

Nothing like being behind a solid Dwarven wall while planning attack stratagies, but beware, he who waits too long will find a kick monster smashing their fort to pieces.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

M.Braun

Mar 25, 2006

6

Bad performance caused by bad programming, very unbalanced units, online almost not possible not to rush - online games are to 90% about 15-20 minutes long. Heroes too strong for the relative cheap price.

Helpful?

0 of 1 users said yes

WalterR.

Apr 11, 2006

9

This is a great game. I played the original and loved it too. The campaign was very short. It would have been nice to continue the campaign where the original began. My game crashed initially as well but I figured out the problem. This game needs a great deal of ram. It will play with 512MB but make sure you have enough virtual ram allocated. A better set-up would be at least 1GB of ram and preferably 2GB. Those that had crashes can try this it worked for me. Don't give up on this game, it's a lot of fun and has great replay value online or skirmish settings. You can even set up your own heros... There are alot of games that are technically perfect (CIV IV or ES:OBLIVION) but not fun to play and then there are games that probably could use some facelifts but are great to sit down to and play on a daily basis (LOTR, CIV II, COMMAND and CONQUER).… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

TylerP.

May 11, 2006

10

This game is absolutely amazing. The graphics are great while running on ultra settings. The game is easy to pickup with a learning curve of about 2 or 3 online games or scrimmishes. Screenshots do not give this game justice, it looks MUCH better when everything is flowing seemlessly without a hitch. Although the game is easy to pickup and play, it also has massive depth to it. There are so many elements present that it changes the game completely. An example is elevation, in maps such as minas tirith or any map with a hill for that matter, arches at the top will have a proportionate increase in range compared to those trying to capture the hill or fortress. Another aspect is the hero's and custom heros (much too get into detail with herp's). I highly reccomend this game to any fan of the Lord Of The Rings or strategy games in general.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ErnestC.

May 23, 2006

9

I have played so many RTS games and BFME 2 is nothing extraordinary. But it doesn't have to be. It is suprisingly, suprisingly good. Believe me. You would be skeptical playing it at first, considering that most games based on a movie kinda falls short. But this doesn't. Yes its based on a movie but the game itself stands on its own. The pacing is fast and smooth and ive never experienced an RTS game that feels like a "fighting" game. You could play a skirmish in half an hour and thats more than enought to keep you in excited. The sound is excellent. The ambient sounds to the shuffle of armor and the sheating of blades puts you into the game. Also, the replayibility is high. Theres so much variety in the gameplay. Just research about its War of the Ring mode. You install the game, you play the campaign - next thing you know youre already playing for hours and want more. Kudos to EA for this game. The only thing that stopped me from giving it a 10 is that you cannot zoom far enough. Hopefully, they'll do something about this soon.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

LeoR.

Nov 26, 2006

1

It is the absolute worst game of the year and the worst game on the Xbox 360 to date. It is dull boring, graphically crap and just well.....bad. No one has made one decent LOTR game yet.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

RyanB.

Jan 8, 2007

9

Its good lots of action, not too much focus on building up heros are fun.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

AlexT.

Feb 8, 2007

8

The game is good and it has a strategic map (similar to Total War series) and a tactical RTS map. I like graphics and the AI is good!

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

ChrisA.

Jul 27, 2007

3

The original was alot better. EA had something original. BFME2 is now just like any other RTS game. THere's nothing unique to it. BFME2 was basically BFME1 with new units and buildings. The campaign wasn't good. They brought build everywhere back which isn't original, and now the game is only about rushing. There is absolutely NO TACTIC in BFME2 or BFME2: ROTWK. On multiplayer games, the only thing that people build are archers. The graphics weren't different than the original. The music didn't fell LOTRish to me at all. There are big disbalancement issues. The forces of good are unbeattable which makes it pointless for a player to choose the forces of evil. The Create-A-Hero feature was uber crap All the heros of good had the same powers and all the heros of evil had the same powers, they are almost impossible to kill.The campaign missions were to repetitive and it seemed like you were only playing a skirmish game. This game was the biggest RTS disapointment ever. BFME1 was obviously better than BFME2 and BFME ROTWK. Mainly because of the simplicity of gameplay, you had the choice of playing a long campaign or cut through with the army of your choice. The balance was excellent and the graphics good for that time. The music was as good as the movies! It was also based on the movies which felt very familiar but different at the same time. Mark Skaggs was a much better producer then Mike Verdu. The people who gave this game 10/10 obviously are book fans who've never played an RTS game before and would give a 10/10 for any kind of game that's labelled "The Lord of the rings" Don't buy BFME2. Buy BFME1.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 1 users said yes

IvenB.

Aug 30, 2007

2

The campaigns are just like every other regular RTS style campaign, unlike the original. The gameplay is flawed and every new patch released by ea still leaves troops underbalanced or leaves overbalanced troops still far too overbalanced. the multiplay aspect is full of glitches, exploits and rushers, and if you finally get a good game people will end up leaving or the game will crash for an unknown reason. Create a heroes are too powerful, you can only create them in one way as every other way leaves them vulneranble in combat, and as the game is based around fighting, you don't want your hero to die. BFME1 was a far better game to play, it had originality of base creation, the campaign was original and fun, and the online play was far better than on BFME2 or ROTWK.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

SethD.

Jun 23, 2008

9

Well i think some things were weird: 1. no angmar elite troops 2. not very many evil archer heroes 3. aeagorn cant use his bow 4. legolas should be able to use his swords whenever 5. nazgul custom would be nice.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Jason

Sep 12, 2008

7

I have mixed feelings about this game. The free-build for the game was nice, but it ran into problems, since resources took up a HUGE portion of the map. Perhaps this was done to make the games longer, but for me, I spend a lot of early time building resource buildings so I can build (and maintain) an army and then I have to spend a lot of time defending huge tracts of land. I liked building the huge fortresses of BFME1 better. The addition of the new races makes it a bit more fun (although the Men of the West are basically Gondor and Rohan combined) but they also have some frustrating imbalance issues. For instance, a dwarven axe thrower has a longer range than any other ranged unit that I've seen (even Gondor Rangers). The lack of customization on the Create-A-Hero was a little bit of a letdown for me. You can customize the armor, but there's nothing you can do about the face, and even then, there's only about 4 or 5 armor selections to choose from. I also didn't like the fact that when I tried to attack a territory with my Create-A-Hero in the War of the Ring mode, it wouldn't do it, for whatever reason. A bug? Intentional? I have no idea, but it kind of ruined that aspect of the game for me. The War of the Ring concept is interesting, but really like the Dawn of War: Dark Crusade idea (and I think DoW did it better). However, the mythology and the scope of the game are great and you can get a lot of replayability with it. I'd say just nerf the "superheroes" (e.g. Gimli was able to take down three of my heroes, all level 2, my entire army of about 5 or 6 squads of various types, all at level 1...), patch the War of the Ring to let custom heroes invade territories, and shorten the range of the Dwarven Axe Throwers, and I say the game would get at least an 8.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

BruceH.

Mar 3, 2006

10

I love this game.

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes

Seibab

Jul 13, 2011

9

I'm surprised with the number of low ratings. I'm a big fan of the rts genre, and while I was skeptical when I first bought Battle for Middle-earth 2, I found it to be an amazingly enjoyable game. Even today, it still looks stunning. I have no idea what some of the people are talking about when they say it isn't original. I haven't played any game like it, the armies are vast (much bigger than in games like age of empires, command and conquer, and warcraft 3), and the heroes powerful. If you're a fan of rts games, I would rate this an 8 for you; if you're a fan of the Lord of the Rings books, I would give this a 10.… Expand

Helpful?

0 of 0 users said yes
All this user's reviews

Review this game

Essential Links

Critic Reviews

Read User Reviews and Submit your own for The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth II on PC