The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth

 PC
User Score
8.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 332 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 282 out of 332
  2. Mixed: 41 out of 332
  3. Negative: 9 out of 332
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. Abraham
    Mar 1, 2005
    2
    Probably the biggest waste of a great potential. And the multi-player is just awful. restricted location building. I wish they had just given us the C&C:Generals engine with LotR sweet graphics and flavor. a real bummer.
  2. JamesK.
    Dec 13, 2004
    2
    No AI, no strategy. What else is new with Westwood-engine-based games. Plays like a brainless piece of crap, but then again that never stopped most other RTS successes before.
  3. RTSFAN
    Dec 26, 2004
    1
    What a horrible game. The gameplay is long and boring, the ingame interface is terrrible with minimal functionality. The units are unintersting and lack any sort of stratigic depth. On top of the fact the game is riddled with all sorts of bugs. The only thing going for this game is that it's in the LOTR universe and the graphics are nice on a high-end machine. Conclusion: Unless you What a horrible game. The gameplay is long and boring, the ingame interface is terrrible with minimal functionality. The units are unintersting and lack any sort of stratigic depth. On top of the fact the game is riddled with all sorts of bugs. The only thing going for this game is that it's in the LOTR universe and the graphics are nice on a high-end machine. Conclusion: Unless you are a hard core LOTR fan, avoid this game like the plague. It is truly one of the worst RTS games on the market. EA should be ashamed of itself. Do yourself a favor and stay away from this stinker. … Expand
  4. DoctorG.
    Jan 12, 2005
    2
    A very very disappointing effort. This game was promoted by EA as being a huge strategic warfare game, and all the videos and "screenshots" they released seemed to support this. However almost those shots were from the cut scenes not the game itself. The gameplay is boring and repetitive with no real scope for strategic decisions. The graphics are good, 8/10 for them, but there's A very very disappointing effort. This game was promoted by EA as being a huge strategic warfare game, and all the videos and "screenshots" they released seemed to support this. However almost those shots were from the cut scenes not the game itself. The gameplay is boring and repetitive with no real scope for strategic decisions. The graphics are good, 8/10 for them, but there's more to producing a tie-in game than copying all the pretty CGI. Anyone who wants to play a proper, strategic RTS game should go and buy Rome: Total War. Luckily for me my local EB Games has a 7 day return policy. EA Games doesn't deserve a cent of my money for this piece of vacuous fluff.… Expand
  5. MrK
    Jan 17, 2005
    1
    Positive - Graphically very good. Negative - Everything else. CONCLUSION: Truly pathetic. Did anyone beta test this garbage?
  6. K.Diggle
    Jan 18, 2005
    3
    Overall a poorly laid out game. For each good level like Moria, Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, there's about 5 other bland, flat areas with no substance or usefullness in the game. They contribute nothing to the story, or anything else for that matter. By the time I had my characters levelled up, I beat those generic missions in less than 5 minutes, just because it was the same Overall a poorly laid out game. For each good level like Moria, Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, there's about 5 other bland, flat areas with no substance or usefullness in the game. They contribute nothing to the story, or anything else for that matter. By the time I had my characters levelled up, I beat those generic missions in less than 5 minutes, just because it was the same drill again and again. I was a fan of the other EA Games LOTR games, but this one is just bad. The good levels are way too few and far between, and the rest is useless, repetitive blah. I can't really recommend this game at all.… Expand
  7. gracjanski
    Aug 19, 2018
    4
    Yes, sure a deep strategic game haha. Maybe these guys are employed by EA or just children. The dumb gameplay is the biggest problem with BMFE, there are not many strategic choice, you cant build buildings freely, there is a unit cap, there are not many units, not many researches. Just the power tree is a bit interesting. Instead of being strategic this game is much more tactical and fastYes, sure a deep strategic game haha. Maybe these guys are employed by EA or just children. The dumb gameplay is the biggest problem with BMFE, there are not many strategic choice, you cant build buildings freely, there is a unit cap, there are not many units, not many researches. Just the power tree is a bit interesting. Instead of being strategic this game is much more tactical and fast -.- It is like a game for teenies.

    The Interface and controling is bad, because you need too many clicks to give the command. You should control the heroes with a shortcut I think, for example with F1-12.

    If you know the movie, you know the story, so you can say, great I am playing the movie, but on the other side, there is no surprise. The design of the main missions are great, but the axillary missionsa are all the same and boring.

    Technically the game is :/. The graphics is ok for a 2004 game, unfortunately the game doesnt provide AA and the engine cant handle more datas, so there are not many mods to improve the graphics. AI is stupid.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

35
#35 Best PC Game of 2004
22
#22 Most Discussed PC Game of 2004
35
#35 Most Shared PC Game of 2004

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 42
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 42
  3. Negative: 0 out of 42
  1. Warcry
    85
    The plain gameplay, awkward balance, and poor optimization are flaws to be sure, but they are offset by stellar graphics, sound effects, and voice acting (all of which make for a very immersive atmosphere).
    Read full review
  2. Next Level Gaming
    80
    So how do the graphics look? Well I must say I was wholly unimpressed.
    Read full review
  3. IGN
    83
    The focus on combat is great, I just wish the combat had been as sterling as I had imagined it would be. The small number of units just doesn't provide the depth that I was hoping for.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »