War of the Ring (Sierra) Review

[Endur]

Review:

The game plays a lot like Warcraft from Blizzard.

The story is very loosely based on the Lord of the Rings. These are essentially various battles not covered in the books/movies. While its nice to have these battles, I'd much prefer to "re-create" the battles in the novels. The one battle which is very similar to the movie, is the Battle for Helm's Deep.

Most of the famous characters are present as "hero characters": the Fellowship, Theoden, Gollum, the Lord of the Nazgul, Grishnak, the other nazgul, the Mouth of Sauron, etc.

For whatever reason, I didn't find this game as fun as Warcraft.

I wish they had used the actual LOTR actor's voices, instead of some people trying to sound like the actors. However, I understand for budget reasons, that wasn't really possible.

 

[Welverin]

Well the reason for them not using the actor's from the movies is because they don't have the license to make games based on the movies (EA does), so it wasan't an option.

 

[Endur]

I'm pretty sure that this game was a movie-tie in. It sure seemed like it was based on the movie.

But I have no idea regarding license issues or the actors. Just speculating.

Well the reason for them not using the actor's from the movies is because they don't have the license to make games based on the movies (EA does), so it wasan't an option.

 

[Ranger REG]

More like the license was granted to them by Tolkien Enterprises and not through New Line Cinema. So it is based on the books, not the movies.

 

[Endur]

...

 

[Endur]

Yes, but since the movies are based on the book, and the game is based on the book, not having a license for the movie shouldn't matter as far as the game is concerned. They can make the exact same game, just can't include movie imagery, etc. That's not my big concern with this game, however.

My concern with this game is that it reminds me of Warcraft, not War of the Ring.

I played the 1970's SPI boardgame version of War of the Ring. I also played the 1987 PC game version. Both of those focused on the large strategic game.

This game is little missions, and you basically build a base everytime, have peasants collect resources, build buildings that give you increased tech tree options, and then sent troops out. That gets boring fast.

I would have preferred a more strategic game.

There are also some strange story things going on in the game.

The Evil Campaign is set in Third Age 2000 and the Good Campaign is set in Third Age 3000. But Sauruman, Grishnakh, and Gollum are active as heroes in the Evil campaign, 1000 years before they were actively on the evil side. Other various story issues (haradrim in Rohan, Uruk-hai being a mix of Barrow Wights and Orcs, etc).

What would have made this game a major improvement?
1) No buliding/peasant collection of resources/etc.
2) Missions for Moria (Cave Troll battle, Balor vs. Gandalf); Siege of Minas Tirith and Pelannor Fields; Battle of the Gate of Morannon; Battle of Five Armies (and Bard the Bowman vs. Smaug); Frodo and Sam vs. Shelob and Gollum;
3) Tighter correlation with the books.

 

[Ranger REG]

AFAIC, the films' actors have been contracted to lend their voices for three of EA's licensed LOTR videogames (the ones based on the movies), including the next title, The Battle For Middle Earth.

I doubt Sierra can contract them as the actors may be restricted in their contracts, and because Sierra is not the videogame licensee of New Line Cinema's LOTR.