User Score
6.9 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 93 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 59 out of 93
  2. Negative: 22 out of 93

Review this game

  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 excitab
    le 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 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!!! Collapse
  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, 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. 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. 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.
  8. 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 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
  9. 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 Third Age. Best world would give me both. Expand
  10. 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 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
  11. 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 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
  12. 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 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
  13. 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 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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....
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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!!
  21. Sep 17, 2011
    3
    This could have been a Middle Earth set Star Wars Battlefront-esque game, which would have been great. But it isn't. Its terribly realised. There are few maps, few classes and so few enemies that you spend half of the allotted battle time running around trying to find someone to kill. Heroes and the Scout class are so ridiculously overpowered that you can just mop up in one life as a scout warrior. Enemies tend to congregate right around your spawn point. There are so many graphic flaws and bugs, they really detract from the gaming experience. It would have been cool to ride Oliphaunts and stuff, but you can't. All in all, a game that could have been great, turned out to be anything but that; poor balancing, bugs, hack and slash bashing, short levels and story and annoying AI, make this game one of the worst out there. Expand
  22. Dec 9, 2012
    5
    Campaign is interesting to playthrough but no where near as good as it could have been. Enemies come at an endless spawn, which isn't bad but it can be rather frustrating and annoying at times. Enemies are also a bit over powered on the lower difficulties. Multiplayer is too basic and weak, Lack of solid gamemodes and maps. Gameplay isn't bad but it's a little awkward, Especially when attacking enemies. No real replay value. Fails to live up to the hype. Expand
Metascore

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.