User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 323 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 64 out of 323

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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 IThe 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
  2. MarioL.
    Mar 10, 2006
    10
    The best RTS game I ever played! Order pizza, I'll be playing a long, long, long, time!
  3. 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 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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
  7. JeffC.
    Mar 9, 2006
    10
    Super fun. Super cool. It's all I'm playing right now!
  8. 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!
  9. 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 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
  10. 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 biggerI'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
  11. 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 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
  12. 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 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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 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
  15. YkudzA
    Mar 9, 2006
    10
    Great game with awesome multiplayer.
  16. 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 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
  17. 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 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. SamK.
    Mar 9, 2006
    9
    Nice graphics, great multiplayer, interesting map game. Campaign was short but very LOTR.
  24. 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 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
  25. RyanB.
    Jan 8, 2007
    9
    Its good lots of action, not too much focus on building up heros are fun.
  26. 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 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
  27. 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!!
  28. Jan 4, 2013
    10
    Perhaps lacking in originality or innovation, I find the gameplay itself to be simply outstanding. Aside from Starcraft, I haven't spent as much time in an RTS, replaying and replaying - most of that comes from the depth of material drawn from the films, giving one an immersive experience that I don't believe another LotR game has matched.
  29. Jun 16, 2013
    10
    lotr on his best cool story with the north thats just awsome to fight with the story isnt that long but you keep playing with some new modes that could bin a lilte better but its still fun its a bitty that ea had to this up and now we cant play online and we cant buy this game anymore only on amazon for 500 dollars but still this game is great with lots of maps you can play like youlotr on his best cool story with the north thats just awsome to fight with the story isnt that long but you keep playing with some new modes that could bin a lilte better but its still fun its a bitty that ea had to this up and now we cant play online and we cant buy this game anymore only on amazon for 500 dollars but still this game is great with lots of maps you can play like you wound and make your own herous that awesome you can than level them up the graphics are nice to you dont have that much options but its good like this its epic like this lets hope that we get a part 3 i am hope so much ea or sombody els Expand
  30. Jun 23, 2013
    9
    The game itself has a fun campaign (not as good as the first BFME game as they made it linear) good gameplay and excellent music and artwork. SUCKS that EA discontinued the online version even though it was played regularly
  31. 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 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
  32. 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.
  33. Aug 7, 2012
    6
    After playing and enjoying the first Battle for Middle Earth, I was excited about this game, but ultimately was disappointed. The game succeeds in taking us to previously-unseen places and allowing us to command new forces, but for all the glamour I never found it particularly compelling. I suppose that's what happens when it lacks the known characters of the original but fails to createAfter playing and enjoying the first Battle for Middle Earth, I was excited about this game, but ultimately was disappointed. The game succeeds in taking us to previously-unseen places and allowing us to command new forces, but for all the glamour I never found it particularly compelling. I suppose that's what happens when it lacks the known characters of the original but fails to create new memorable characters or story. I did like that unlike its predecessor this game allows you to (mostly) freely build structures instead of using nodes, but this is small comfort. This was definitely a game that I finished more out of duty than enjoyment. Expand
  34. 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. 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's about it. Expand
  35. 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
  36. 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 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
  37. 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 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
  38. 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. 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
  39. 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 onlyThis 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 Expand
  40. 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 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
  41. 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 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
  42. 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
    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
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. 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?
  46. [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 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
  47. 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 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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????
  50. 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
    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
  51. 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....$$$...
  52. 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.
  53. 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 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
  54. 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 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 Expand
  55. 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.
  56. Dec 2, 2013
    4
    This game had great potential, but its AI, unit balance and online Lags are some of the worst i ever seen. The original BFME was just better, the biggest let down here is story mode. The main problem is that AI is absolutely broken. It never upgrade troops and just swarm, multiplayer could save it, but again unit balance is so poor that you will quickly go play online Starcraft, WarcraftThis game had great potential, but its AI, unit balance and online Lags are some of the worst i ever seen. The original BFME was just better, the biggest let down here is story mode. The main problem is that AI is absolutely broken. It never upgrade troops and just swarm, multiplayer could save it, but again unit balance is so poor that you will quickly go play online Starcraft, Warcraft 3. CnC 3 or dawn of war. Expand
  57. 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 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
  58. 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. 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
  59. 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.
  60. PaulD.
    Mar 2, 2006
    10
    Amazing! Finally a Great RTS!
  61. BruceH.
    Mar 3, 2006
    10
    I love this game.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. 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!
  65. 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 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
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. Oct 11, 2013
    6
    This game is a sheer joy to play. They did a lot of things right in this game like the sound effects and the semi-RPG elements with the units and character, but they also did a lot of things wrong like the "power up" ability. 1st off they take way too long to recharge and also they are really expensive so you'll generally have to wait a long time before you can buy another one.
  69. Mar 8, 2013
    6
    The sequel to the incredible Battle for Middle-Earth. I don't really believe the game is anywhere near as good as its predecessor. The campaign modes are mediocre, at best, but the Skirmish and the create-a-character bring some new stuff into this game. I also really don't like the way the factions are decided (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc.). I prefer the old style of the original gameThe sequel to the incredible Battle for Middle-Earth. I don't really believe the game is anywhere near as good as its predecessor. The campaign modes are mediocre, at best, but the Skirmish and the create-a-character bring some new stuff into this game. I also really don't like the way the factions are decided (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc.). I prefer the old style of the original game (Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Gondor). I also prefer the idea of their being castles instead of having fortresses with builders. Overall, okay game, but nowhere near as good as the original. Collapse
  70. Nov 10, 2013
    8
    Great game for Lord of the Rings fans, not that great RTS. The online servers used to be very unstable and the balance... well, there was no balance. The graphics were great, can't deny that. What wasn't all that great was the post release support. It took forever for a patch to come out that didn't really fix anything and soon after, support died all together. I'm not going to deny that IGreat game for Lord of the Rings fans, not that great RTS. The online servers used to be very unstable and the balance... well, there was no balance. The graphics were great, can't deny that. What wasn't all that great was the post release support. It took forever for a patch to come out that didn't really fix anything and soon after, support died all together. I'm not going to deny that I still had a huge amount of fun with this game and the player made scenarios were great. Expand
  71. Feb 23, 2014
    9
    This RTS went deeper into tolkiens lore with the campaign and units from its predecessor. One of my favorite strategy games of all time. Its a lot of fun controlling great battles of middle earth and seeing who plays out as victor.
  72. Nov 9, 2014
    10
    The Battle for Middle-earth II is a great strategy game. I remember back in the days siegeing Helms deep as Isengard with a friend against other players, who most likely chose Elves and Men due to their strong archers. I remember having great FFAs on dead marshes and tournament hills. I remember having great 1 on 1s at the fords of Isen as well as great 2 on 2s in Udun. I'd really love toThe Battle for Middle-earth II is a great strategy game. I remember back in the days siegeing Helms deep as Isengard with a friend against other players, who most likely chose Elves and Men due to their strong archers. I remember having great FFAs on dead marshes and tournament hills. I remember having great 1 on 1s at the fords of Isen as well as great 2 on 2s in Udun. I'd really love to see a Battle for Middle-Earth III, especially since there are many opportunities now with the three new Hobbit movies. Expand
  73. Apr 29, 2015
    10
    Excellent strategy from the world středozemně.Doporučuji everyone who likes strategy games, and after the rope is even more fun than command and conquer and it's a lot.
  74. Mar 8, 2013
    0
    The sequel to the incredible Battle for Middle-Earth. I don't really believe the game is anywhere near as good as its predecessor. The campaign modes are mediocre, at best, but the Skirmish and the create-a-character bring some new stuff into this game. I also really don't like the way the factions are decided (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc.). I prefer the old style of the original gameThe sequel to the incredible Battle for Middle-Earth. I don't really believe the game is anywhere near as good as its predecessor. The campaign modes are mediocre, at best, but the Skirmish and the create-a-character bring some new stuff into this game. I also really don't like the way the factions are decided (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc.). I prefer the old style of the original game (Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Gondor). I also prefer the idea of their being castles instead of having fortresses with builders. Overall, okay game, but nowhere near as good as the original. Collapse
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 36
  2. Negative: 0 out of 36
  1. While Battle for Middle Earth 2 has taken a step back from its more avant-garde predecessor, it's a welcome one. If it wasn't for the woefully sub-par AI, this game would earn an easy, unreserved recommendation. But rolling over the AI time and time again in single-player just gets old, and if you don't have the appetite for online play, you'll end up pushing it to the back of the drawer and hoping for a patch.
  2. Innovative, fun to play and a joy to watch. A breath of fresh air in the stale real-time strategy genre. [Mar 2006]
  3. The Battle for Middle-earth II improves on 2004's game with a better strategic mode and a much broader scope that encompasses the whole of Middle-earth.