-= Gametoast.com =-

So, for all those who have gotten LotR: Conquest, what do you think of it? I pretty much liked it, but there are some things I didn't like. Post your pros and cons here.

Pros:
-Making a dream come true (a LotR style BF2)
-Good AI
-Intense fighting
-Good campaign, I liked it.
Cons:
-The characters do not have the same voice as in the films.
-Aragorn and Faramir have a axe on their back, when they should have bows and arrows.
-More, bigger battlefields.
-Not all the characters from the film are in there, and ones that are, like Theoden, you can't play as.
-Campaign from the first LotR film

Nova Hawk wrote: Cons:
-The characters do not have the same voice as in the films.

This I never quite understand, and it's not just you who has said this. Popular actors, especially those like Orlando Bloom, cost way over a couple thousand just to read a few lines, and spending that much for them on a video game just isn't worth it when that money could be going into game design.

Little known fact to the majority of the public but almost, maybe even more than, half of the money used to make the Shrek films went to the actors, and not to CGI and writing (which the later ones desperately needed if you ask me...)

Personally, I think the voice actor for Gandalf was perfect, and the voice actor for Frodo fit the little annoyance perfectly.

Fusion wrote:

Nova Hawk wrote: Cons:
-The characters do not have the same voice as in the films.

This I never quite understand, and it's not just you who has said this. Popular actors, especially those like Orlando Bloom, cost way over a couple thousand just to read a few lines, and spending that much for them on a video game just isn't worth it when that money could be going into game design.

Little known fact to the majority of the public but almost, maybe even more than, half of the money used to make the Shrek films went to the actors, and not to CGI and writing (which the later ones desperately needed if you ask me...)

Personally, I think the voice actor for Gandalf was perfect, and the voice actor for Frodo fit the little annoyance perfectly.

Yes, but how much does it cost to recycle the old voices?
I may be way wrong here, but isn't EA one of the people who worked on this?
If so, they have the Battle For Middle Earth franchise, with all the voices from the movies.

If I'm wrong about EA, how much could it cost to get the recycled voice overs?

Caleb1117 wrote: Yes, but how much does it cost to recycle the old voices?
I may be way wrong here, but isn't EA one of the people who worked on this?
If so, they have the Battle For Middle Earth franchise, with all the voices from the movies.

If I'm wrong about EA, how much could it cost to get the recycled voice overs?

Probably not as much, but still a lot, because their agents would be all like "LAWSUIT!" if they just recycled the tracks.

[/quote]Personally, I think the voice actor for Gandalf was perfect, and the voice actor for Frodo fit the little annoyance perfectly.[/quote]
Yes, I think so and Aragorn's voice sounded pretty identical.

As long as the lot of them have British accents like in the movies, it probably wouldn't bother me.
I'm hoping to get this game.

From me two words GREAT FUN! I would like it more if it was not such a button - masher.

The game is heavily critisized in many reviews and Im not a lotr fan --> so I wont get it.

well I don't know If this qualifies as a bump(barely over a month old).

I just bought LOTR conquest and I think it's really cool on the overall .
Pro's
-Awsome game setting
-great fighting engine
-awsome graphics
-good physics engine

Con's
-Mage, cheesy concept; sticks out like a sore thumb...
-Archers are too simple; needs better shooting engine
-needs more units
-certain areas on maps seem to be blocked of on different game modes.

jedi_pilot wrote: Con's
-Mage, cheesy concept; sticks out like a sore thumb...
-Archers are too simple; needs better shooting engine
-needs more units
-certain areas on maps seem to be blocked of on different game modes.

Say what you like about the classes, but the mage was put in for balance, and the archer, other than it seeming like his arrows fly straight, i.e. no gravity, I think is fairly well done, you just have to get the hang of it, just like the sniper in Battlefront.

Speaking of Battlefront, it does the same thing for some of its game modes, for example Hoth, and I haven't heard anyone complain of it yet.

As to the units thing, it has 150 AI on the field at once, how many more do you need?

Frisbeetarian wrote:

jedi_pilot wrote: Con's
-Mage, cheesy concept; sticks out like a sore thumb...
-Archers are too simple; needs better shooting engine
-needs more units
-certain areas on maps seem to be blocked of on different game modes.

Say what you like about the classes, but the mage was put in for balance, and the archer, other than it seeming like his arrows fly straight, i.e. no gravity, I think is fairly well done, you just have to get the hang of it, just like the sniper in Battlefront.

Speaking of Battlefront, it does the same thing for some of its game modes, for example Hoth, and I haven't heard anyone complain of it yet.

As to the units thing, it has 150 AI on the field at once, how many more do you need?

Sorry didn't clarify, I meant more unit classes not mor units on the battlefield .

I think they should have replaced the mage with a spear unit, or maybe a unit with a shield. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the game. And it cheapens the effect of playing cool characters like gandalf, or saruman.

I like some of the abilities of the archer, I just think they could have done more with the shooting part. Maybe allowing you to hold down the mouse button for more power, or atleast being able to hold fire until you release the button.

BUMP > 30 days == locked

Have a nice day