Killer reviews for Conquest-The worst of them all!

Please wait...

This article was written on an older version of FileFront / GameFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

Published by Digz 11 years ago , last updated 2 years ago
CVG, GamesRadar and GameCyte clearly didn't like Conquest, they rated them quite low, all under 5/10 which really sucks as the expectations for this game were really high, maybe Pandemic just couldn't handle the pressure of weren't up to the challenge. Here is CVG's review of 4/10:
It's a bad opening to a disappointing game. As you'd expect Conquest's single-player experience takes the form of various Lord of the Rings battles chucked together in an order, book-ended with clips from the films, a licensed soundtrack and a voiceover by the bloke who did the Cillit Bang ads (sounds like him, anyway). Just like the Battlefront blueprint gameplay's based on, each level challenges you to capture or defend specific points of the map, or eliminate special enemies such as orc captains and Oliphaunts. Pick your character class (Warrior, Archer, Mage and Scout), go for the objective, die, repsawn, die, respawn. Repeat. The first two playable character classes are as bland as cornflakes; Warrior's are your basic hack 'n slash vehicles while Archers feel like Stormtroopers with guns disguised as bows. Mages and Scouts at least inject some strategy into online games with moves like the Scout's ability to cloak and backstab, and the Mage's arrow-blocking shield bubble keeping things slightly interesting.
Click here to read the full review. Here is a part of GamesRadars review who rated the game 2/10:
It might have worked, too. EA did a fine job banging out three LOTR games cribbing from the Dynasty Warriors template, didn’t they? And those games were produced by the guys who did Greg Hastings Tournament Paintball, and the unfortunately named and now defunct Stormfront Studios, so how hard could it be, right? Well, you sure showed them. Battlefront managed a thoroughly decent bit of shooty-shooty-bang-bang between Empire and Rebel forces, but Conquest takes its cue from Dynasty Warriors and makes the combat so intangible and repetitive, and the combo system so incompetent there’s not a single decent punch-up to be had. Where Battlefront looked good, Conquest is Keith Richards; where Battlefront had interesting and almost-balanced character classes, Conquest has a band of wooden-legged freaks who moonwalk like the Former King of Pop; where Battlefront had fun vehicles to pilot and fight, Conquest has the gimpiest horses since Two Worlds, and Cave Trolls and Ents which, frankly, look like claymation diarrhea.
Click here to read GamesRadars full review. Finally here is the GameCyte review who rated it 2/5 which we can make out to be 4/10 for comparisons sake:
It's awfully hard to make a "Lord of the Rings" game so mundane and run-of-the-mill that even a diehard Tolkien fan like myself starts getting bored of it within an hour, but "The Lord of the Rings: Conquest" did it. Based on the series of books and movies, "Conquest" focuses on the aspect of "LotR" that everyone loves most: epic battles. Contrary to past third-person action games taking place in Middle Earth, though, this game doesn't revolve around the heroes; it revolves around the nameless grunts that populate the fodder that eventually needs saving: warrior, archer, mage, and scout.
If you want to read GameCytes reivew click here.
Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!