The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

 PlayStation 2
User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 41
  2. Mixed: 13 out of 41
  3. Negative: 17 out of 41
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. doomfist229
    Aug 17, 2018
    0
    While i appreciate the attention to detail from the book, the game as an rpg sucks. the missions are pointless, the character design is laughable, and the camera angle are the worst ever, period. Do yourself a favor, if you MUST play this game do to some odd mental dysfunction you have, at least save yourself $50 and rent it.
  2. Bunny1022
    Mar 9, 2003
    2
    While i appreciate the attention to detail from the book, the game as an rpg sucks. the missions are pointless, the character design is laughable, and the camera angle are the worst ever, period. Do yourself a favor, if you MUST play this game do to some odd mental dysfunction you have, at least save yourself $50 and rent it.
  3. Sam
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    GOD this game sucks. Anyone who likes it is a moron. Best PS2 game ever? They obviously haven't played any of the GTA's or Ratchet and Clanks. Decent graphics, but simple controls and awful gameplay dissapoint me.
  4. Biddaddy
    Feb 12, 2003
    0
    Couldnt get past the second major monster, impossible! iM GLAD I ONLY RENTED THE GAME.
  5. EldonT.
    Mar 7, 2004
    3
    The game is an attempt. it's really bad in the beginning. about the only good thing about it was the fact that it meticulously followed the storyline. the game needs more fighting. i mean come on! you probably kill about 40 enemies tops. and most of it is just "go find this" and "retrieve that". gandalf's limited abilities kill whatever interest you had in playing him. in short: The game is an attempt. it's really bad in the beginning. about the only good thing about it was the fact that it meticulously followed the storyline. the game needs more fighting. i mean come on! you probably kill about 40 enemies tops. and most of it is just "go find this" and "retrieve that". gandalf's limited abilities kill whatever interest you had in playing him. in short: don't pay more than $6.99 for this "interactive experience".… Expand
  6. hnfcx
    Jan 11, 2003
    0
    This game is so bad I can't even give it a 1.
  7. LunarD3ATH
    Nov 29, 2022
    0
    Anyone who says this game is the "best" or even remotely good is lying to you. Assume they're trolls.

    This game is a pile of **** and is the reason EA won the licensing war for the franchise's movie adaptation rights.
  8. GabePhoenix
    Mar 7, 2022
    4
    I confess; this game has some magic in it, but it could've been a lot more. It starts off quite nicely, in the Shire, introducing it's many habitants, and their way of life. It can be relaxing and surprisingly good to just walk around the place and explore it's surroundings.

    The lore is great, and it follows the book in a satisfying way, but the gameplay itself is the real problem in    I confess; this game has some magic in it, but it could've been a lot more. It starts off quite nicely, in the Shire, introducing it's many habitants, and their way of life. It can be relaxing and surprisingly good to just walk around the place and explore it's surroundings.

    The lore is great, and it follows the book in a satisfying way, but the gameplay itself is the real problem in here... especially the combat, and it's COMPLETELY failed attempt of a stealth. It can be absolute hell to control Frodo in a fight, and less of a tragedy for the other characters, such as Gandalf and Aragorn. "Oh, but Frodo can't fight", I know he can't, but the gameplay is still trash all the same.

    The level design has some inspired segments, but the graphics themselves are not really that great to look at (and that's putting it mildly). By the end of 2001 (a year ago at that time), we already had games like Final Fantasy X and Shadow Hearts, so there's no excuse for such mediocrity from a respectable IP such as this one; you could feel the developer did put a certain small amount of passion in some aspects of this title though.

    I had some fun in it, but that's probably 'cause I just love the theme it's based, so I went in with all the patience in the world.

    Anyway; there are a lot of semi, or full RPG games out there in the PS2 market that would completely obliterate this guy, but do give it a try if you're a LOTR fan, or you'd just like to experience the Fellowship of the Ring story arc in a video-game.

    It is a BELOW AVERAGE game.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

54
#54 Most Discussed PS2 Game of 2002
75
#75 Most Shared PS2 Game of 2002

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 13 out of 19
  3. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. Games Radar
    60
    But why Surreal Software decided to make the playing the game such hard work is anyone's guess. [GamesMaster]
    Read full review
  2. G4 TV
    40
    The lackluster presentation combined with the clunky and often frustrating gameplay makes Fellowship of the Ring more of a chore to play than anything else.
    Read full review
  3. PSX Nation
    50
    One boring, predictable and by-the-numbers attempt to cash-in on the popularity of Peter Jackson’s movies.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »