User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 105 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 64 out of 105
  2. Negative: 24 out of 105

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. NickM.
    Jan 31, 2009
    6
    Ignore Tess A. After having played the game for about six hours, it is indeed a button masher of the highest caliber. There are some major balancing issues, at least several major bugs and various glitches, among other things. The levels are too short, it's just not that fun, and at times it can be frustratingly difficult.

    There are several announcers in the game; each more
    Ignore Tess A. After having played the game for about six hours, it is indeed a button masher of the highest caliber. There are some major balancing issues, at least several major bugs and various glitches, among other things. The levels are too short, it's just not that fun, and at times it can be frustratingly difficult.

    There are several announcers in the game; each more excitable and petulant than the last. They just will NOT shut up. They shout the same order to you every five seconds or so, just in case you forgot, I guess.

    I'm trying to think of positives... Oh, the character models are a little ugly, but could be worse. The overall presentation isn't too bad. The sound (besides the voice acting) is pretty good. I'm sure there's more.

    This isn't the worst game in the world, but it's not very good, either.
    Expand
  2. Feb 2, 2012
    8
    I agree with NickM. ...... to some extent. This game is a button masher, but not like you would typically think. You button mash, but it has to be done strategically and at certain times. You can't always use one attack all the time, some of the enemies are to strong for that. You have to mix up your button combinations to kill certain enemies. I love the evil story mode, and if it's toI agree with NickM. ...... to some extent. This game is a button masher, but not like you would typically think. You button mash, but it has to be done strategically and at certain times. You can't always use one attack all the time, some of the enemies are to strong for that. You have to mix up your button combinations to kill certain enemies. I love the evil story mode, and if it's to easy for you, Turn Up The Difficulty Level!! There are some bugs with the game, but overall the game is fun to play. Now that this game has been out for a while it is well worth it's price, I bought mine for cheap. Definitely recommend this game to whoever wants a fun LOTR game!!! Expand
  3. Dec 28, 2013
    4
    The Lord of the Rings: Conquest is a great example of why you definitely shouldn't get your hopes up for a game based off a movie/book. This game is a complete button-masher and the story should have been good because it is LOTR, but the characters had absolutely no emotion. The graphics were OK enough, but the game suffered from minor bugs and glitches and the levels in the story modeThe Lord of the Rings: Conquest is a great example of why you definitely shouldn't get your hopes up for a game based off a movie/book. This game is a complete button-masher and the story should have been good because it is LOTR, but the characters had absolutely no emotion. The graphics were OK enough, but the game suffered from minor bugs and glitches and the levels in the story mode were sometimes frustrating and too short. The online multiplayer is imaginative and pretty fun. This game is for people who want a LOTR game and don't care too much about quality. Expand
  4. TessA.
    Jan 17, 2009
    10
    Fantastic online multiplayer. No matter how many :critics" call it a button masher, it is far from it. This game requires aim, timing and skill. Don't let the people who have obviously never actually played it detour you from a fantastic game with tons of online fun to be had. Please, more games like this and I will be set.
  5. JarrettDunn
    Jan 14, 2009
    8
    For what I bought it for (multi-player) the game is wonderfull. A merging, if you will, of say the Battlefield or Battlefront series with Tolkien's Middle-Earth... Is it perfect? No there are problems with it as with any game; however, if you buy it for what it is (essentially an MP "conquest"/DM game) it is a fun and enjoyable experience.
  6. GrantR
    Jan 19, 2009
    8
    I was almost turned off by the critic reviews, but since I had a gift card to amazon, and had another 10% taken off of that (as well as free 2-day shipping) I decided to give this a try. Now, I will say that this game does have obvious flaws. Occasionally, in the campaign, the game can devolve into Dynasty Warriors, which isn't bad, but can become a tad repetitive. Also, warriorsI was almost turned off by the critic reviews, but since I had a gift card to amazon, and had another 10% taken off of that (as well as free 2-day shipping) I decided to give this a try. Now, I will say that this game does have obvious flaws. Occasionally, in the campaign, the game can devolve into Dynasty Warriors, which isn't bad, but can become a tad repetitive. Also, warriors have a kick in their "light attack" which tends to cut off their own reach. Also, I had a few problems with the archer in terms of hit detection. I enjoyed playing the campaign through with a friend, and we both noted some issues, but in the end we had FUN. Yes FUN, the primary quality that a game should be rated on, not production values, graphics, or off the wall innovation--no, just plain simple fun. Also it seems that much of the critics played offline and just put the game down. Online multi-player is just as fun as BF, and as proof to the fact that it isn't just a "button-masher" you will die, a lot. The game also did a good job in giving each unit a purpose, just like in battlefront, some units are better on certain maps, but that won't stop you from finding a need to play as every unit at least once per game. I'm giving this an 8 because that's what I gave battlefront, and this is basically new version with a larger emphasis on melee combat. The game is getting patched, so some of the technical issues should be gone soon. All in all, I had fun, and I'd love to see a sequel that fixes some of the issues. Expand
  7. Leo
    Jan 19, 2009
    8
    Agreed with Tess. For all it's shortcomings, the game actually turned out to be a radical sucess in regards to multiplayer. Indeed, the necessity for the scout to be behind someone to actually get his insta-kill is obnoxious, since any good player will just back up against a wall any time they suspect a scout might be near; but that doesn't deter from the necessity of skill. AAgreed with Tess. For all it's shortcomings, the game actually turned out to be a radical sucess in regards to multiplayer. Indeed, the necessity for the scout to be behind someone to actually get his insta-kill is obnoxious, since any good player will just back up against a wall any time they suspect a scout might be near; but that doesn't deter from the necessity of skill. A warrior button mashing will lose, because another warrior or class will upstage his constant x mashing, another warrior will string together a combo, and to any who say 'he'll just use RB+X', untrue, a smart player will attempt to dodge this until his little ring... meter... thing drops to zero, at which point he's dead. I use this as an example of how fair and balanced the classes can be (and not like Fox News). One thing that really grinded my gears though, was how the ents look. If you take the time to examine the... say... Orc Archer from Minis Tirith, you'll notice a shocking amount of detail and a true creepy demeanor fit for a sadistic sharpshooter. The multiplayer is fun, period. I'm boggled by the critics who whine about it being too much like battlefront. Pandemic found a formula that worked, they used it again with the necessary alterations. What happened to 'Don't fix what isn't broken'? If nothing else, rent the game. Decide whether or not you agree with the critics. Expand
  8. CamHudson
    Jan 20, 2009
    8
    Great game. It's not much of a button masher, especially if you play as an archer. It's not perfect, and the graphics look very much like a launch title but non the less it is very fun. The online is fun, and the campaign is great. It does severely lack some polish though. Worth a rent.
  9. MikeH
    Jan 23, 2009
    3
    I will admit that I sort of enjoyed the mostly broken gameplay however as a game this had soooo much more potential. The missions are short and require little to no fighting if you just make b-lines from point to point. Online experience is mediocre at best, overpowered classes destroy the balance in the game and take away from the fun.
  10. AnonymousMC
    Jan 28, 2009
    8
    Lord of the Rings: Conquest is a nice concept. The online battles can get pretty intense and it's not just a button masher like many critics say. It's true that it's not a very deep game but that's why its good. the campaign (both good/evil) can probably be beaten ina total of 4 hours. It's obviously not the main focus of the game though, and at times seemsLord of the Rings: Conquest is a nice concept. The online battles can get pretty intense and it's not just a button masher like many critics say. It's true that it's not a very deep game but that's why its good. the campaign (both good/evil) can probably be beaten ina total of 4 hours. It's obviously not the main focus of the game though, and at times seems unfinished or unpolished. But the online is fun and different. I'd say give it a try if your sick of playing the typical shooters online. Expand
  11. MikeCoon
    Feb 3, 2009
    3
    The game really doesn't appeal to either the LotR fan in me or the Battlefront fan in me. The gameplay failed to excite me in any way, and as a fan of the books, I found nothing but errors with the source material that would be just as easy to get right as they were to get wrong. I'll have to hold out for either Battlefront III or another LotR game along the lines of The ThirdThe game really doesn't appeal to either the LotR fan in me or the Battlefront fan in me. The gameplay failed to excite me in any way, and as a fan of the books, I found nothing but errors with the source material that would be just as easy to get right as they were to get wrong. I'll have to hold out for either Battlefront III or another LotR game along the lines of The Third Age. Best world would give me both. Expand
  12. DavinL.
    Feb 9, 2009
    6
    Shouldn'tve put my expectations so high...

    +EVIL CAMPAIGN!!! +different classes and beasts to play as +sound department did a pretty good job... +Multiplayer is surprisingly sweet -5 to 7.5 hours of COMBINED (good&bad) campaign playing time -Very repetitive in a negative way... -Try not to compare it to SW:Battlefield...you'll be sorely dissapointed ~The way you
    Shouldn'tve put my expectations so high...

    +EVIL CAMPAIGN!!!
    +different classes and beasts to play as
    +sound department did a pretty good job...
    +Multiplayer is surprisingly sweet
    -5 to 7.5 hours of COMBINED (good&bad) campaign playing time
    -Very repetitive in a negative way...
    -Try not to compare it to SW:Battlefield...you'll be sorely dissapointed
    ~The way you progress through levels can be ridiculously hard or easy...your choice
    ~How do you feel about killing hobbitses?

    Where do I begin...I saw a preview and got totally sucked into the hype of this game. Then when I got it and played through it, I was left with a rather...emoty and unsatisfied feeling. The campaign is ridiculously short for such and epic story. It covers all three books (with clips from all 3 movies) in about 6 hours of play... The multiplayer aspect is very entertaining for some reason...i don't know what it is. If you're a heavy LOTR fan or in for a quickie, rent/buy this. If you're a SW:B fan , stay away...
    Expand
  13. RobHuston
    Feb 16, 2009
    8
    This game is under-rated. I suspect most reviewers played it pre-release, and thus never had the chance to get into 16-player on-line matches in the "real world", which is where this game shines. Every reviewer who says it is just "button mashing" was definitely playing it completely wrong -- if you just mash buttons, you are going to die frequently and be very frustrated. Once you learnThis game is under-rated. I suspect most reviewers played it pre-release, and thus never had the chance to get into 16-player on-line matches in the "real world", which is where this game shines. Every reviewer who says it is just "button mashing" was definitely playing it completely wrong -- if you just mash buttons, you are going to die frequently and be very frustrated. Once you learn the nuances of the interesting rock-paper-scissors class mechanics, you'll get a lot more out of this game and realize that the reviewers missed out on a gem by judging too quickly and just "mashing buttons". Expand
  14. JasonH
    Feb 17, 2009
    8
    From past critics regarding movies, restaurants, and even video games I feel that we should get our own opinions by actually playing the game. I'm sure most of these critics in my opinion are late 30's mindless drones of the simbiotic world of media outlets that don't get to truely sit back and actually "play" a game. I'm sure they get hundreds of games to try and thenFrom past critics regarding movies, restaurants, and even video games I feel that we should get our own opinions by actually playing the game. I'm sure most of these critics in my opinion are late 30's mindless drones of the simbiotic world of media outlets that don't get to truely sit back and actually "play" a game. I'm sure they get hundreds of games to try and then write a mindless review of how crappy a game is. I would almost bet that 0 out of 100 critics don't even go back and try to play the game after it's been out for a month. They need to. Servers are stable, graphics are not what they claim, and the online game play is tremendously fun. Expand
  15. CalebHyles
    Feb 18, 2009
    7
    The only thing saving this game from a 4 or 5 is the very fact that it has multiplayer. Not just online multiplayer, (which seems to be the trend these days) but splitscreen co-op with a couple of friends on the couch. Yes, the game is a button masher, but it does require a bit more skill than most in it's league. Upon first time playing, I was reminded of Dynasty Warriors. The cameraThe only thing saving this game from a 4 or 5 is the very fact that it has multiplayer. Not just online multiplayer, (which seems to be the trend these days) but splitscreen co-op with a couple of friends on the couch. Yes, the game is a button masher, but it does require a bit more skill than most in it's league. Upon first time playing, I was reminded of Dynasty Warriors. The camera can be a nuisance at times and it would have been ten times better if they had added a 'lock on' option. That would have really helped considering that some enemies (Warriors) are near to impossible to take down. They do nothing but block! Gameplay is stale and repetitive; graphics are sub-par at best, and there is almost no story to be told. Online is a welcome addition, but if you're going to add this difficult feature to contain, make sure it performs well. All that being said, splitscreen co-op saves this game from utter defeat. You can play through the campaign with two player, and you can play cooperatively with four players in instant actions which pits your friends against AI opponents in Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and a mode where you are trying to find the 'Precious'.
    That's what's so amazing about splitscreen co-op. It can make a mediocre game that had almost no redeeming values and turn it into something special. We are meant to enjoy life together with friends and family. When a video game adds co-op to the experience, you can bring joy to others around you and not just to yourself.
    Even though this game is nowhere near as good as it could have been, more developers need to follow their example and make their games co-op. Thank you Pandemic for keeping the joy of playing with close friends alive.
    Expand
  16. TomProbert
    Feb 21, 2009
    7
    An interesting game. i have been waiting for game like this sfor some time. i am a bit dispointed. iit is good fun for a few hours but it does not have the indepth elemnets that star wars battlefornt did well in. if you want a good LOTR game go for the battle for middle earth.
  17. JerryDickson
    Feb 22, 2009
    5
    Tess A. must be about 8 years old, or hasn't played decent videogames. This game , while not terrible , was flawed in a lot of ways; mediocre graphics, not a lot of fighting moves, and well, all you gotta do is RUN PAST THE ENEMY and get to where the arrow is, and you fly through this game. Disappointing that my favorite movie of all time gets a game like this....
  18. Nov 20, 2010
    7
    Lord of the rings has got their battlefront version; Lord of the rings conquest!
    sadly the online has been closed down. You play as either the good or the evil side and either conquer or save it. I don't think it is quite as good as the battlefront series because it just plays the same for both sides. graphics 7/10 gameplay 7/10 sound 8/10 replay value 8/10 overall 7/10 good
  19. Mar 1, 2011
    6
    I've been waiting for a great LOTR game to come out, this is unfortunately not it. Although it can be enjoyable, which is definitely is a lot of the time, it is spoiled by poor controls, glitchy and repetitive gameplay, and lack of story. This game could have been much more if executed better.
  20. Mar 18, 2011
    5
    Fleetingly entertaining but ultimately hollow. This game feels like a shell of Star Wars Battlefront with a thin layer of Lord of the Rings on top. It's not a bad game but it feels lazy and sluggish. Being able to see what would happen to Middle Earth if Sauron was victorious but it is handled haphazardly and it doesn't feel fully developed. A missed opportunity.
  21. Jul 28, 2011
    1
    Lord of the Rings will not appeal to any Lord of the Rings or even a Star Wars Battlefront fan. This game is just a dumb button masher that fails to impress anyone. There is a lot of glitches and bugs in the games. The graphics are dated , the voice is ugly , and the overall presentation is bland. Do not get this game!!
  22. Sep 6, 2013
    6
    el señor de los anillos conquista es un buen juego, pero no logra abarcar la grandeza de efectos y cosas del señor de los anillos la pelicula, hay que ver mas alla de un simple juego entretenido medieval e ir a una descepcion comparado a lo que se esperaba
  23. Aug 14, 2014
    5
    This game is a bit boring, to be honest. It feels like the same gameplay over and over again. Granted, the game is very fun. You can have LOADS of fun playing with friends; it's great, just so bl**dy repetitive. The environments are interesting, but since you don't notice them when you're fighting. The game is so rinse repeat that it gets extremely boring, until you never want to play it again.
  24. Oct 15, 2014
    4
    I wouldn't recommend it. You will spend 25% of the time on lying down on the floor and being unable to get up because the enemies keep hitting your rising body and quite a lot of that time being glitch-ly pushed across the floor especially while playing one of the classes that isn't the warrior as the gameplay seems to be suited to that class; and even that class isn't that good. MostI wouldn't recommend it. You will spend 25% of the time on lying down on the floor and being unable to get up because the enemies keep hitting your rising body and quite a lot of that time being glitch-ly pushed across the floor especially while playing one of the classes that isn't the warrior as the gameplay seems to be suited to that class; and even that class isn't that good. Most time he decides to take a little rest in the middle of fighting making you be pushed onto the floor et cetera. His ability make you run with your sword on fire burning anyone you hit but then you will fly way to far past all of the enemies and this apparently is quite tiring so you decide to, once again, take a rest leaving your lovely back open to attack and (somehow) it being hit leads to you being on the floor again. Now, as I said the game seems to be suited to the warrior and that's because of the weakness' of the other classes compared to the combat and their weakness' in general and here's why (looking at each class): The archer has a ludicrous reloading time and no sensitivity setting seems to be suited to his form of combat, and missing constantly would be fine if the reloading time wasn't so bad. He also has three abilities the first one fire three arrows, one forward, one of to the left and of course the other to the right which is alright. The second is a small vicinity AoE poison attack which is quite useful as most enemies stay in large clumps. And the third attack is a fire attack which just does more damage, which doesn’t come in handy when your mostly being attacked by grunts (worse enemies) and the aiming is bad so when fighting the enemy warrior (harder enemies) you miss them quite a bit. The only special thing about the scout is it's ability and that is quite poor; it makes you go invisible but when you hit someone you become visible and this whole game is about fighting hordes of enemies so when you hit one person they all spot you and your ability wont work properly so you become just a weaker version of the warrior. And the mage, he has bad cool down on his main spell which also has a charge so you will find yourself just using your bad melee attack most of the time. There is an infinite ability that gives you a shield that can defend you from all ranged attacks but in single player this useless because the AI is not so smart so they don't use it and then there’s an AoE ground slam, a heal and a short ranged, ranged attack that has a gravity curve. The graphics are less than good especially as it was published by EA and you might be saying "Give it a break it came out in 2009" yeah but so did Arkham Asylum, Halo 3 ODST, MW3 and Final Fantasy XIII (I know it was a disappointing game but it looked quite good). The friendly AI is useless they don't help at all and that’s not in your combat it's in helping with the objective, like they should be. You may start your mission with 15 companions but you will probably end it with less than 4 of them because the rest have buggered off into walls. The game also has two different campaigns but this just seems to be there to add more hours and therefore a bigger price tag. All it is, is just the same thing as the first campaign just mixed up a bit with different sprites (because you play as the enemy), a different story and maybe the chance to control a troll or Oliphant (which is slow and clunky). Talking about repeating things that's what all the levels are just the same things over and over again: capture the base, defend the base, get to the base, destroy the thing and the base kill the boss and if the combat wasn't so boringly repetitive this would be fine but unfortunately it is. 4/10 Expand
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 58 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 58
  2. Negative: 15 out of 58
  1. 70
    Diehard fans of both online, class-based games and The Lord of the Rings might want to invest the sixty bucks, but if redundant and unimaginative gameplay are things you despise, you'll want to steer clear.
  2. It’d be too easy to say that Conquest will appeal only to diehard Tolkien fans; in fact, they’re the ones most likely to hate it.
  3. The Lord of the Rings: Conquest is an exciting and action-packed way to experience Middle-earth, provided that you have the patience and fortitude to shoulder a few frustrating burdens.