Lords of the Realm III

 PC
User Score
3.8

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 24
  3. Negative: 16 out of 24
Buy Now
Buy on

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
view
per page
  1. MikeC.
    Mar 29, 2004
    2
    This game dosn't deserve to be in the Lord of the Realms series, it sucks. Go back and play LOTR II its at least a hundred times as good. You win battles or lose them with little difference, your enemy just as yourself just drags in a new serf and give you the ole rope a dope. You have to take out several regions simultaneously to have any real effect. But why bother your attention This game dosn't deserve to be in the Lord of the Realms series, it sucks. Go back and play LOTR II its at least a hundred times as good. You win battles or lose them with little difference, your enemy just as yourself just drags in a new serf and give you the ole rope a dope. You have to take out several regions simultaneously to have any real effect. But why bother your attention can only be on one thing at a time, so there is no way to enjoy the random victory you will sometimes 'enjoy'. After a about 10 time trying the game I have decided to toss it, the times I won were at dissapointing as the losses, it just plain sucks!!!… Expand
  2. Jok`RdeMo
    Mar 23, 2004
    2
    This game actually sucks! And I was waiting for it for so long... I am very disappointed. :( I was very big fan of LOTR2. When I started to play third part I was expecting something like LOTR2 but with 3D, but instead of that I get... I dont know how to call it... childish strategy, why childish? because it is SO simple - there is no need to get into battle yourself, computer will do it This game actually sucks! And I was waiting for it for so long... I am very disappointed. :( I was very big fan of LOTR2. When I started to play third part I was expecting something like LOTR2 but with 3D, but instead of that I get... I dont know how to call it... childish strategy, why childish? because it is SO simple - there is no need to get into battle yourself, computer will do it just fine, so all you have to do is to manage your land - that is just choose what kind of man will be your vassal (knight,serf,priest or burgher). If you liked second part of game or if ya liked Stronghold then dont buy this game - you will not like it, actually I dont know who would like this game and why?… Expand
  3. Johando
    Apr 20, 2004
    1
    Incredible how some people - probably people working for Sierra -give this thing a 10. Basically there is no strategy or tactics involved at all. You find yourself sending armies to chase other armies as they move around without fighting. When you accidentely get into a fight, tactics do little good... Only the sieges are decent and even then AI is so-so. Diplomacy is non existing, and Incredible how some people - probably people working for Sierra -give this thing a 10. Basically there is no strategy or tactics involved at all. You find yourself sending armies to chase other armies as they move around without fighting. When you accidentely get into a fight, tactics do little good... Only the sieges are decent and even then AI is so-so. Diplomacy is non existing, and battles are incredibly boring. Long live LOTR II! LOTR III = biggest disapointment in years. … Expand
  4. DinoM.
    Apr 3, 2004
    1
    I've played LOTR2 for many occasion until the disc had actually too many scretches! When I bought the copy of the next sequel, I had so high expectation that I almost dropped my jaw, hard to believe that this can't be the next sequel. Ok, the point is that it's not worth to play. Don't waste your time learning to play it.
  5. [Anonymous]
    Mar 21, 2004
    10
    This is a beautiful RTS with a decent amount of carnage for any experienced player.
  6. Aaron
    Apr 3, 2004
    9
    I've been waiting for this game for one year, and the game sells for $20. These aren't good signs, however, this game is very fun, and is the most in depth RTS game i have played. I love AOE and AOM, but they don't have 3 different levels of kingdom management, and they don't have in depth diplomacy, both of which LOTR3 has. If your reading this, buy the game, its I've been waiting for this game for one year, and the game sells for $20. These aren't good signs, however, this game is very fun, and is the most in depth RTS game i have played. I love AOE and AOM, but they don't have 3 different levels of kingdom management, and they don't have in depth diplomacy, both of which LOTR3 has. If your reading this, buy the game, its worth your 20 bucks.… Expand
  7. MelZ.
    May 30, 2004
    6
    Dissapointing is the word that adequately sums it all up. This title was a major let down. Lords 2 was deeper, more complicated, and a far better simulation of medival life than this game is. The makers of this game have decided to emphasise more on the battlefield element than strategic resource management. What made this title's predeccesor so successfull was that is combined both Dissapointing is the word that adequately sums it all up. This title was a major let down. Lords 2 was deeper, more complicated, and a far better simulation of medival life than this game is. The makers of this game have decided to emphasise more on the battlefield element than strategic resource management. What made this title's predeccesor so successfull was that is combined both of those elements in a nearly flawless balance. The makers decided to trim so much fat from LOTR2, that part 3 has very little actual gameplay remaining. Oh did I mention that this game is also dreadfully slow? Newbies to the RTS genre may enjoy this one, but veteran players will be disappointed.… Expand
  8. Akots
    Jun 28, 2004
    1
    Cannot give any decent rating because I was unable to run the game on my computer which exceeds the minimal requirements. The game crashes and crashes and I cannot play longer than a few minutes. Patch and driver updates do not help and Sierra's tech support is as weird as it ever was.
  9. Weidox
    Aug 18, 2004
    2
    Don't want to repeat all other users opinions, but this game is crap compared to LOTR2, and crap compared to other today titles too. Building own castles is a great innovation, but it means nothing when whole game is a mess.
  10. KevinZ.
    Feb 26, 2005
    7
    The game has nice combat but a weak ai all around and the inability for me to download the update loses big points since I can't play it online without it.
  11. Alex
    Jul 26, 2007
    3
    Terrible game. The combat AI is silly : very bad compared to stronghold 2 or Knights of Honor. Also the sieges are silly compared to these 2 games. The strategy map is a good idea: all happens in real time, but the quality is inferior to Knights of Honor. To sum up, in my opinion it's a game sold at an early Beta stage. Not very serious from Sierra.
  12. sr
    Jun 13, 2008
    0
    Yeah, this is nothing more than a really long demo beta in my book. Nothing like the last games, almost no depth to the game. Those that gave 10, are part of the groups that do false posts to raise something and work for the companies. "decent amount of carnage for any experienced player" umm.. what carnage, there isn't even blood and bodies just disappear. It was as if it came out inYeah, this is nothing more than a really long demo beta in my book. Nothing like the last games, almost no depth to the game. Those that gave 10, are part of the groups that do false posts to raise something and work for the companies. "decent amount of carnage for any experienced player" umm.. what carnage, there isn't even blood and bodies just disappear. It was as if it came out in 2001 and just hit the stores now.… Expand
  13. AnonymousMC
    Mar 21, 2004
    10
    This game is one of the best games I have ever bought. Being a strategy game lover I know what to look for in these type of games. it has great graphics and has advanced features inside the game. If you are looking for a great stragety you should buy this one.
  14. BradR.
    Mar 22, 2004
    1
    My system far exceeds the system requirments of this game. The game crashed 4 times in the first hour of gameplay. Downloaded the patch 1.1 from Sierra.com then the game crashed another 4 times. As far as the graphics are concerned they are mediocre in comparison to titles like Warcraft 3. In comparison to Lords of the Realm II the focus of the game is much less on the battles and far My system far exceeds the system requirments of this game. The game crashed 4 times in the first hour of gameplay. Downloaded the patch 1.1 from Sierra.com then the game crashed another 4 times. As far as the graphics are concerned they are mediocre in comparison to titles like Warcraft 3. In comparison to Lords of the Realm II the focus of the game is much less on the battles and far more focused on boring politics. There is a huge text file that you must read through to even begin to understand the politics of this game. In short - the things that made Lord of the Realms II fun have been completly taken out of this version making it a boring sequal to one of favorite games of all time. … Expand
  15. Shane
    Mar 28, 2004
    1
    This game is probably one of the biggest let downs ever. The gameplay is so strange, the battle mode is really glitchy, and all you really end up doing is managing on the strategic level. The computer does most of the work. Now I understand why this game retailed at only 20 bucks.
  16. MikeB.
    Apr 23, 2004
    2
    Slow moving and poorly planned.
  17. DrewS.
    Jul 12, 2006
    2
    Wasn't at all what i expected. I did enjoy the seiges, but he battlefield is useless to command yourself as stratedgy is taken out of it. Also could't figure out how to train troops other then mercenaries. They have ruined a great series in my books.
  18. CorrieT.
    Dec 28, 2007
    1
    So disappointed, lor2 was a great strategy game lor3 is just a mess, easy to win, no thought involved in game play -except to keep having to find your army and land in the poorly developed interface.. I've been looking forward to playing this game for a while, just a big disappointment.

Awards & Rankings

50
#50 Most Discussed PC Game of 2004
92
#92 Most Shared PC Game of 2004

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
65

Mixed or average reviews - based on 11 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 11
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 11
  3. Negative: 2 out of 11
  1. IGN
    64
    Without offering a little more depth to either the tactical or strategic aspects of the game, we're left with two experiences that are integrated well enough but leave us wanting more.
    Read full review
  2. Cheat Code Central
    80
    For a budget title you'll be amazed at the quality of the presentation and the depth of the gameplay.
  3. Computer Games Magazine
    70
    It is truly a shame that many clever ideas are obscured by the game's lackluster manual, because its blend of real-time strategy and tactics is an innovative re-working of the genre. [July 2004, p.62]
See all critic reviews »