Raidenex
12-20-2004, 12:53 AM
If there is one shining light in all of E.A.'s shonky work ethics and products, it's their Redmond studio - aka the once great Westwood Studios. These guys created the real-time strategy genre with Dune 2, brought us future warfare with Command & Conquer, took us to an alternate World War II with Red Alert, and put us in the war against terror (and China!) with Generals.
I've been a fan of C&C since the first game was released, and I fell in love with the series with Red Alert. When I heard of Westwood's demise, I feared it meant the end of my beloved series, but it turns out E.A. actually did something smart and kept the team together. Generals was a well balanced product perfectly in the style of Command & Conquer, and a multiplayer blast.
The next big thing out of Redmond is this game - a Lord of the Rings themed real-time strategy. Many review sites have been giving it average reviews, but with my experience of the game so far, it is the best Westwood game I have ever played, and the most balanced and fun Lord of the Rings game. The hack-and-slash actioners never appealled to me - battles in LotR are about large scale armies and seiges on well defended locations. It's also about characters who are endearing, and who stay with you for the entire time.
Battle for Middle-earth gives you all of this, and more - from leading the Fellowship of the Ring through Moria, to Eomer clearing out the Westfold, it feels like you are actually experiencing the Third Age of Middle Earth. In the missions i've been playing last night, i've been leading Eomer and Rohirrim through wiping out Isengard Orcs who have been spreading into Rohan. You feel invincible as you ride through Orcs, knocking them down, and feel fear when you see the pikemen who can massacre your forces.
Sure, resource gathering has been simplified, as has base-building, and with a limited number of units, there are only so many strategies you can apply. But this game is definately more about experiencing Middle-earth, and the single-player campaign. Multiplayer is still fun, but Generals is better; for an enjoyable standalone strategy experience, the Battle for Middle-earth is great.
I've been a fan of C&C since the first game was released, and I fell in love with the series with Red Alert. When I heard of Westwood's demise, I feared it meant the end of my beloved series, but it turns out E.A. actually did something smart and kept the team together. Generals was a well balanced product perfectly in the style of Command & Conquer, and a multiplayer blast.
The next big thing out of Redmond is this game - a Lord of the Rings themed real-time strategy. Many review sites have been giving it average reviews, but with my experience of the game so far, it is the best Westwood game I have ever played, and the most balanced and fun Lord of the Rings game. The hack-and-slash actioners never appealled to me - battles in LotR are about large scale armies and seiges on well defended locations. It's also about characters who are endearing, and who stay with you for the entire time.
Battle for Middle-earth gives you all of this, and more - from leading the Fellowship of the Ring through Moria, to Eomer clearing out the Westfold, it feels like you are actually experiencing the Third Age of Middle Earth. In the missions i've been playing last night, i've been leading Eomer and Rohirrim through wiping out Isengard Orcs who have been spreading into Rohan. You feel invincible as you ride through Orcs, knocking them down, and feel fear when you see the pikemen who can massacre your forces.
Sure, resource gathering has been simplified, as has base-building, and with a limited number of units, there are only so many strategies you can apply. But this game is definately more about experiencing Middle-earth, and the single-player campaign. Multiplayer is still fun, but Generals is better; for an enjoyable standalone strategy experience, the Battle for Middle-earth is great.