The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-earth Finely presented but light on the strategy.
Meanwhile, Electronic Arts had their own Middle-earth strategy game in the works, one that took much from the movies, and a development team going at great length to make sure it represented the movie in terms of visual style and scale. In that sense, EALA has succeeded for the most part. The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-earth is stylistically consistent with Peter Jackson's movies and is presented with style and polish. While that portion of the game is excellent, the rest of it is simply decent. While it's fast and can certainly be fun, there's just something missing in the gameplay to categorize it as wondrous.
Be that as it may, I still have had an enjoyable time playing Battle for Middle-earth and I think fans of the movies will as well, even if the story isn't totally consistent.
The experience is broken up into two single player campaigns (good and evil), skirmish, and multiplayer. Play the good campaign and you can force Mordor back within their borders and give Frodo enough time to destroy the Ring of Power. Play as evil and do your best to grind the good right out of Tolkein's fantasy world. There's definitely something satisfying about thrashing the hobbits and heroes of the Fellowship.
Both campaigns take place on the Living World Map that has been much talked about by EA. It's really a gorgeous map of Middle-earth. It shows the various territories of the land including everything from Isengard to Nurn. Each of these territories has values associated with it that make a difference to gameplay. For instance Cair Andros gives +20 command and +2 power if beaten while West Emnet gives +20 Command and +10% Resources. There is only a tiny bit of strategy about which one to take at which time and the map doesn't represent a true turn-based feature since it's really only asking for a choice of battle location. In any case each of these values will be added to your total over the course of the campaign giving you bigger resource bonuses, the option to command more people, and more power points to select special powers (which are cool and I'll get more into that in a second).
Units also carry over from mission to mission along with their upgrades and experience. It's strange because some of the missions are incredibly hard if these units aren't carried over (because of big beginning rushes), but others are insanely easy if they are. Even some of the last missions such as Nurn were incredibly easy to finish in a short amount of time thanks to fully upgraded armies that had been raised to level 8-10. Even the very last mission at the black gate was pretty darn easy with the amount of ranged units in my entourage. It's nice to be able to carry units over, but when the enemy simply runs hundreds of newborn orcs at you, it's hard to lose. Strangely enough, while units carry over, heroes do not suffer any consequences. If you don't save Boromir atop Amon Hen, he still will be available for the rest of the game. If you kill Gimli and Legolas on the same level for evil, you'll have to kill them again later. I understand you want people to use heroes, but that should wait for multiplayer. There needs to be continuity in the game for special characters in single player.
Most of the territories on the Living World are simply skirmish and multiplayer maps used to create a larger and more world inclusive experience for the campaign. They're not bad, but it can get more than a little repetitive towards the end of the game since there isn't a ton of variety to the gameplay or map design in those particular levels or even very much strategy involved, largely due to the small number of units, which is a bigger problem.
But every now and again, the choice of attack will be removed in order to progress the timeline and have players fight a famous battle from Middle-earth including the big ones like the defense of Minas Tirith and the storming of Isengard by the ents along with smaller scale events like the passage through Cirith Ungol and the skirmish between the Fellowship and the Uruk-Hai on Amon Hen. These special designed missions are definitely the biggest strength of the single player, using a lot more design and scripting to create mood and atmosphere. Each of these is preempted by a short cut-scene to set the mood. Unfortunately the mood and reality don't always fit. While the sieges like Minas Tirith were certain fun, the game never reaches the scale and unit numbers shown in these breaks, which can be a bit disappointing if that's what was expected.
The problems with these designed scenarios (even though they're the best) come down to a choice about the overall gameplay. Battle for Middle-earth is a simple real-time strategy game. The interface has been significantly changed from typical RTSs, but the basics are the same. Resources still must be gathered, in this case by static buildings without peons which simplifies the process and allows concentration on combat. Units must be trained. Heroes must be called into action. Enemies must be crushed. It just seems wrong to sit there and create units in the back of Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith instead of just having set numbers of troops against each other as was the case in the movies and the books. It's just too strange to do that in these missions especially.
I guess I'm trying to say the style of gameplay just doesn't fit as well as they would like it to. Total War or Myth style of strategy fits the series and fiction a little better to me. Tactical battles of small groups of humans fighting against insurmountable odds instead of typical real-time strategy. But that wasn't the decision here. Therefore, I'm going to try to put aside the context and setting for a second and take a look at the game itself.
While Battle for Middle-earth is certainly much like many RTSs already on the market, EA LA made some changes to the interface that an impact on gameplay. The biggest of the changes is to the way structures are built. In order to combat the sprawling cities and hidden buildings of many RTSs, each building in BFME must be constructed on a plot. Plots are pieces of land that have either a flag and marking or a faction stamp. For instance, in order to build a camp, a player will have to find a space that is reserved for such a thing. Clicking on the spot with the flag will give the option to build a new camp at a certain price. Each of these castles, camps, or outposts will then be constructed along with a number of plots on the ground. New buildings can then be erected on these plots by left clicking on them and selecting the correct building from the graphical radial menu on screen or hotkey. Same thing for creating units. Left-click on building, left click on icon, troop is on the way. It's a simple way to do things that should have beginners figuring out the idea of base building a little quicker than normal since the strategy of town construction is taken out of their hands.
What this does is focus the attention of all players on battle and certain areas of contention, whether those are outpost expansion points, main bases, or resource plots. These areas are marked by a small circle on the mini-map so that players know where to focus their efforts. The problem is that while the battles are certainly fun to watch thanks to some sparkly graphics and effects, there really isn't much strategy to be had mostly due to the very small number of unit types. Two types of archers, two types of foot soldiers, basic cavalry and trebuchets fills out the entirety of Gondor's lineup. That's only six unit types and the melee and archer types are almost the same. There's not a whole lot of choice for different tactics with such a small selection.
This is only compounded by the veterancy of buildings. Basically, your buildings have to train a certain number of units before they increase in level. Once up a level, new units can be trained. It forces you to build lots of units and then basically send them on suicide missions in order to make room to train better units once the option is available. I understand that it's supposed to make players more aggressive and willing to lose troops. But mostly the losing of troops on my account has been forced because I wanted to upgrade instead of actually losing them in battle.
On top of all of this, it seems like ranged units are excessively powerful. If you have two or three groups fully upgraded, they can take down charging Mumakil, Trolls, Eagles, and even Nazgul without batting an eye. If clever, cavalry can certainly do some damage, but some evil sides don't have cavalry. Besides that, if any archers are lost, they're almost immediately replaced by the banner carrier upgrade which recruits new troops for any lost in the group (units come in groups much like Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War).
The other problem here is that after playing games like Rome: Total War, it's hard to turn a blind eye to tactical strategies like flanking. You would figure this would make a difference. But if you manage to get behind a group of Isengard pikemen with a group of cavalry and run them down from behind, it has the same effect of running straight into them from the front. The cavalry will be smashed even though the pointy end isn't hitting them, which just doesn't make much sense.
Take also the problem of combining unit types so they can work together. Put soldiers and archers together in a group and you have an effective defensive stance. But be careful because you can't split them up afterwards. Once they're together they stay together. Same goes for archers that are stationed in towers. They stay in the towers, you can't empty them out to help with an assault. How hard would it have been to include the option to remove units from towers or mixed formations? It's frickin' aggravating.
Some other things were certainly done right though. Powers and heroes were both included to good effect rewarding aggressiveness in the right way. Power points are gained through combat as are hero levels. Powers can be pivotal in turning a battle. When you see the Army of the Dead or Balrog appear, you know things are getting crazy. These two super powers can decimate enemies and their bases. Used in concert with an attacking force, they can help lay waste to a well defended base. Heroes also play a very important role in force effectiveness, often inspiring friendly troops or fear in enemies. The more powerful heroes like Saruman and Gandalf can do big damage when leveled up and used correctly.
The fast pace of the game also suits itself well for an action packed multiplayer that's made pretty enjoyable by the visual style, lively combat, and personality of animation and reaction. Units cheering, jeering, and cowering in fear are all common and add more fun than there would have been there otherwise.
Balance is always important to the enjoyment of a multiplayer experience and it seems as though they've done a fairly good job here, though time will tell. What I'm most concerned about is the balance of ranged units to any other units. Only cavalry seems to stand a chance and only when in force and when catching ranged units by surprise. I can tell you I was able to mow down many groups of charging Rohirrim with Uruk crossbowmen.
Closing Comments
Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-earth is certainly a decent game. It stays with the great visual style (and some spectacular spell effects) and flair of the movies, though it doesn't do it quite as big. The addition of the living world map was fun even if the strategy of it was minimal and the new interface should help new players learn the ins and outs of real-time strategy without too much frustration.
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. Whether or not the decision to create basic real-time strategy game for The Lord of the Rings fiction was a good one, stepping back to take a look at the game itself reveals it for a decent, if not spectacular game. The presentation and personality helps lift the game past what it would have otherwise been: another decent and fun strategy game.
Still, those that really liked the movies and are looking for a way to be part of Middle-earth will find this worth the wait and lovers of Sauron will certainly enjoy their chance to stomp a hobbit or two. After all, even with all of its flaws, it's fun and that's what really counts. 8.5 Presentation
The game is presented beautifully with the Living World map. Slick menus and loading screens. Wish the had been more continuity of story.
9.0 Graphics
This is a really good looking game. Minas Tirith is especially impressive in scale and spell effects (especially Word of Power) are great.
8.5 Sound
Plenty of great voicework from the cast of the movie along with the same great score and terrific battle sounds.
8.0 Gameplay
Battle for Middle-earth is strategy light. There aren't a ton of different units which is too bad since the focus is on combat. Still, the game is fun.
8.5 Lasting Appeal
Assuming you like the game, there's a lot to play here, though I recommend veteran RTS gamers turn the diffuculty up to hard.
8.3
Impressive OVERALL