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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
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.