Jump to content


Photo

What I think of this game.


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 aNaRcHiSt44

aNaRcHiSt44
  • Members
  • 94 posts
  • Location:Australia? BUSH!!
  • Projects:Nothin.... XD LAZINESS RULES!!
  •  Member? Whatev

Posted 14 October 2009 - 12:05 PM

Ah, the Lord of the Rings Conquest. A game that had so much promise, and was practically guaranteed a bright future.
And then.....EA had it's way.
Pandemic didn't kill this game, no; the producers did.
Because if you noticed, ever since Pandemic has been under EA's yoke, their games have been.....declining.....in terms of support. Fun factor may be higher, but the many issues that the producer decides to make Pandemic not fix truly detract from both company's names. Lately, EA has been screwing over many of their developers; but with what they are doing by allowing Pandemic to make the Saboteur, allowing Bioware to do as they wish with Dragon Age and ME2, and all these other games, they seem to realy be finally attempting to turn around their horrid public image.

Anyway.....

Conquest, for me, was like love. The kind of love that sticks with you for about two hours, then disappears entirely.
It was extremely fun at first; I couldn't believe how big the battles were and the scale of some of the maps in the campaigns.
And then.....there was the horrid skirmish.
How I dread that dreary thing......playing as the heroes offline is about the only fun I have ever had with the game when I re-installed it recently, because the campaigns get old really quickly.
I mean, Pandemic did great with the Pelennor Fields and Black Gate missions, but the rest were mediocre at best. And then you have the mostly....well....moronic voice-overs that really degrade what could have been some nice sounds and music. It doesn't help that the graphics aren't all that good looking, although the unique art direction and stunning detail on some of the models does sort of help me away from calling it 'ugly as sin'.
The gameplay is pretty much rock-paper-scissors, or something far less fun; it usually degenerates into 'I knock you down with my block breaker, I keep hitting you, and knock you down again when you get back up' or 'haha I'm so uber-pawnage that I don't even fit into Middle Earth lore and shoot fireballs out of my wang!'.

Foolish design choices, gluttonous voice overs and the lack of any support whatsoever for the title-aside from two tiny DLC packs made somewhat stupidly for the consoles only-really crushed my hopes of a defining experience in an action genre for the Lord of the Rings. Ah well; for LOTR goodness I've still got LOTRO and BFME2, and if I'm desperate for effects driven RPG stuff, then Third Age all the way.
Conquest was my dream game. It turned into my wet-dream's nightmare.
(God forbid)

Think Conquest was bad? Tell me why. And please don't criticise my spelling; I'm Australian, so we spell diffidently. Oh, wait, it's differently now. I forgot they changed that :p

Edited by aNaRcHiSt44, 14 October 2009 - 12:07 PM.

After all this time, I decided I'd start playing BFME 2 again; after all, it's one of the few games I keep coming back to.....even three-four years after it was made.....
Anyway, my computer has been upgraded; it's just a graphics card, but it's a HD Radeon 4870. How's that for gaming love? I can run Crysis on high at 60fps, maybe at highest (I haven't checked) and the rest of my computer is still actually pretty good; so I'm happy.

Anarchy is so stupid......see IM A REBEL!

Im a lover of footy now, and I can't wait to watch Jarryd Hayne the superhuman and Fuifui Moimoi the tongan bulldozer play in the Four Nations cup. WOOT Hindmarsh is gonna play for Australia now, even with a broken shoulder! Woot he's crazy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users