Metascore
62

Mixed or average reviews - based on 25 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 25
  2. Negative: 3 out of 25
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. 80
    Offers an interesting combination of an established universe with a different game genre.
  2. The ability to develop individual units, in addition to a central lord, makes the game an attractive offering for those seeking compensation for their gameplay efforts.
  3. A decent game in its own right and it should temporarily satisfy two groups: EQ junkies who just can’t get enough, and Warcraft junkies who’ve already played the hell out of "The Frozen Throne."
  4. With multiplayer significantly less user-friendly than in other titles and a lame single-player mode, LoE falls well short of the genre's top dogs. [Feb 2004, p.111]
  5. Goes a long way in making EverQuest accessible to casual RTS fans. Hardcore fans on the other hand could find the game to be too simple, and focused on too small a scale. Creation of units is slow, and mines run out often, so if you don’t mind expanding your force for most of the mission you will find an entertaining game in Lords of Everquest.
  6. Lords of EverQuest gets most of the fundamentals right but one of the most infuriating things is the unit's artificial intelligence. They never really attack or defend when you want them to.
  7. Sports richly detailed environments, a solid soundtrack and gameplay. However, this game is a somewhat typical foray into the RTS genre.
  8. This would be an OK title worthy of rental (if such a thing were possible for PC), but Warcraft III still blows the game away. Get that instead.
  9. Marred by some awful path-finding. The problem isn't in the units ability to find their way around the map, in fact they are very good at calculating routes through some very tricky terrain. No, what LoE suffers from is the inability of units to move out of the way of each other, to allow troops at the back to pass.
  10. There are some interesting ideas here and it is fun to play, but the clouds billowing over the AI, graphics, and gameplay never let the bright spots in these same areas ever fully shine.
  11. 70
    Thankfully, the gameplay shines through in a big way with a nice variety of units that upgrade and control in familiar ways.
  12. Not a breakthrough in any way, nor does it bring any innovations to the RTS genre. However, while it may not hold the attention of "Warcraft III" vets, it still offers a fair slice of enjoyable classic RTS gaming.
  13. Lords of EverQuest has too many problems to be enjoyed by anyone except EverQuest fanatics taking a break from roleplaying.
  14. 65
    Eliminating all resources but money allows for more focus on combat--but combat isn't all that interesting. And units take a long time to create, and a long time to kill.
  15. 60
    A mess of a real-time strategy game that's unlikely to appeal to either EQ loyalists or RTS fans.
  16. Computer Gaming World
    60
    The game is aesthetically stuck in the past, the single-player campaign is a typical helping of fantasy storytelling, and the multiplayer experience feels way too familiar. [Mar 2004, p.76]
  17. PC Gamer
    58
    It not only brings nothing new to the RTS table - it takes stuff away, too. [Mar 2004, p.70]
  18. A bland story in the single-player mode and a host of gameplay issues make Lords of EverQuest feel like a cheap knockoff instead of a worthwhile entry into an established genre.
  19. This is the first game I've reviewed where I cannot justify buying this game to anyone-and coming from a hardcore EQ player, that's a tough thing to do.
  20. Feels like a Rolex knockoff. It seems to have everything that a game needs to be an RTS, but it's simply not fun. The game is boring, from the uninspired characters to the lackluster plot.
  21. Computer Games Magazine
    50
    The game is mostly an exercise in frustration, although a good tutorial and easy early missions might draw in some players who are new to the genre. Overall gameplay is very disappointing. [Feb 2004, p.74]
  22. Diehard EQ addicts and RTS junkies will get some fun out of this game (especially with its monstrous 12-player LAN/Internet support); everyone else should probably just stick to "Warcraft III."
  23. There are just too many problems with its core gameplay for it to be a worthwhile and enjoyable experience. In the end, Lords of EverQuest is a mediocre game in a sea of refined and polished strategy games.
  24. I spent the vast majority of the game sending units off into the darkness with little fear of death and all the tactics of a street brawl.
  25. 30
    One of the most standard, bland, monotonous, poorly done, and "easy money on paper" titles I've seen in quite some time.
User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 25 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 25
  2. Negative: 2 out of 25
  1. FrankH.
    Dec 2, 2003
    9
    I've played them all and I can't tell ya how excited I was to finally get Lords Of EQ. I've played for a few hours now and let I've played them all and I can't tell ya how excited I was to finally get Lords Of EQ. I've played for a few hours now and let me tell you, meets and exceeds expectations... Full Review »
  2. JohnR.
    Dec 2, 2003
    10
    Lords is a nice change from the type of gameplay that WCIII created. I actually had to learn new strategies for this RTS. Glad to see someone Lords is a nice change from the type of gameplay that WCIII created. I actually had to learn new strategies for this RTS. Glad to see someone is taking on the Blizzard goliath. Full Review »
  3. BillD.
    Dec 2, 2003
    9
    More than a Warcraft knock-off. A real treat and a new look at the way RTS's will be played.