PDA

View Full Version : Why Battle for Middle Earth is so poor


DarthMaulUK
12-28-2004, 03:28 PM
Considering the grand scale battles of Middle Earth in the Movies, the 'RTS' game is such a poor relation.

With the command points/bonus points you earn, means that you just CANT recreate such a grand scale assault, as say in Rome:Total War.

It's 2004, and BFME has AI dating back ten years ago. Very often, a unit would be taken apart by archers who are just out of range of attack! If I was under attack, i would either move, or find out where it was coming from.

The game is just too frustrating to be a decent RTS. Ok, if it was released a decade ago, it would have been fine but the benchmark has been raised by the likes of Rome:Total War and Dawn Of War.

Superb AI, great graphics, decent camera controls, really gives BFME a hard slap around the face in terms of how to create a good game.

When in combat, yes the screaming of the orcs dieing for example draws you in - but graphically its disappointing because with Dawn Of War - the same thing happens but you can see everything in fine detail(when zooming in 3d)..even sparks flying off armour!

PC ZONE gave BFME 91% probably without playing it because their reviews are never accurate(theseare the same guys who gave Force Commander almost 90%!) PC gamer, although a little too generous in its final score of 73% - are spot on at how utter crap this game is

http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=33077&subsectionid=1609

Its a poor relation to Rome Total War - something EA were looking at beating but instead have probably just ended up with another C&C Generals game but in a Middle Earth dressing.

DMUK

FroZticles
12-29-2004, 01:20 AM
What makes it stand out is it is different..... Its a whole new style of RTS they did a WC3 and changed everything instead of the old build mass buildings build workers,peons whatever.

Its more war based then most RTS I've seen. IMO it trumps most RTS I've played probably 2nd or 3rd of my best. Comparing to a RTS that plays nothing like BFME and has really nothing to do with each other just doesn't suit. I could post 10 reviews up of how great the game is and also say that that review they did not play the game either.

Obviously you have never played Generals or BFME because the games are nothing like each other.

I read the review and you share that one off person's view. I find it funny how people love there current RTS so much that they trash the opposition just to make sure there community holds together and they can spend an extra 6 months thinking up some ways to trash the next one. After they get sick of the RTS they defended so much and move onto the next the cycle continues....

Its really not our fault you set the bar so high even a few minor glitches will get the hardcore players of other RTS all worked up.

lukeiamyourdad
12-29-2004, 08:16 PM
There are a few things that I must say annoyed me with BFME:

1-No stances. Adding stances would hve been nice.

2-Units AI could use some upgrade.



Other then that, I can say nothing else annoyed me. It is quite a fun game to play and the immersion is there.

The review DMUK posted obviously was made by someone who maybe played the game through SP campaign once and that's it, that's all.
On skirmish mode, the AI is quite difficult(if you don't play at easy). They mass on you, even use the Balrog power on you. I got massacred once due to the enemy Balrog crushing my entire force of Gondor Tower Guards.


His problem is mainly comparing one game with another which he should not do unless necessary.
Graphically, I cannot understand how someone would complain. The game looks beautiful.

It gives life to Middle-Earth and gives it justice. There is nothing cooler then seeing a charge of FU Rohirrims. The game was created to have a good LotR feel, not a Rome: Total War feel or a Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War one.

Note also that in LotR, there appears to be little strategy when it comes to the battle beside the sieges. When they charge at each other, there doesn't seem to be anything else then soldiers running up against their enemies, there's no archer's bombardment, no real tactics. There's only cavalry--->put pikemen in front; infantry---->put infantry in front.

They have somewhat of an excuse for the lack of strategic depth but personnally, I would have like some(like when pikemen slaughter cavalry even if the pikes are facing the wrong way).

I believe some wanted a large scale RTS but got a Med-Large scale one. That's understandable.

The only option is to cull your older troops in suicidal attacks that have little purpose other than to create room for the new guys. No wonder the peasants look so reluctant to serve under Eomer.

This is untrue. Older units are still useful late game. At the end, you'll probably still use Uruk grunts, Orc Hordes and Gondor Swordsmen. Back at the quote with the peasants, I don't see how he needs to make them commit suicide as they're not linked to the more powerful units' building veterancy requirement.


Like I said back at the old thread, people are compairing games that were developped at roughly the same time. If BFME was developped a few years after Rome: Total War and Warhammer40K: Dawn of War, many could and would be justified to compare it to those games in terms of gameplay. You can't just call this game bad because it doesn't have the advancements of games released 3 months earlier. 3 years. Ok. 1 year, Ok. Not 3 months.

The reviewer also expected character development. Dude, it's a f*cking RTS. Go play an RPG if you want lots of character development. This ain't WarCraft 3 neither.

Final note, personally, this games goes in my top 10 RTS.

1-StarCraft/StarCraft: Brood War
2-AoK
3-SWGB
4-BFME
5-Warhammer40K: Dawn of War
6-Rome Total War
7-American Conquest/American Conquest: Fight Back
8-WarCraft 3
9-Dune II
10-AoM

lukeiamyourdad
12-29-2004, 08:28 PM
Sorry for double posting but after reading a few threads about BFME on the gamesradar forums, I can obviously see that these guys are all Rome:Total War fans or Dawn of War fans so the bashing that Froz mentionned is totally true.

Bashing from C&C Generals up to BFME. Yet Generals was far from being a bad game.

FroZticles
12-30-2004, 01:13 AM
The game was made for commercial purposes it was not ment to break records or revolutionise the RTS genre it was a RTS for the fans of LOTR. With the first LOTR RTS stinker War of the Ring it needed salvaging so they made BFME. I have only played a handful of RTS my list goes....

About the hero development thing Luke is correct they were already close to touching the boundary of a RPS like WC3 anymore in depth hero requirment and he would not be posting that review because it would not be an RTS.

1. SWGB CC
2. BFME
3. AOE2 and expansions
4. AOM
5. WC3

lukeiamyourdad
12-30-2004, 07:04 AM
Boomtown posted a review of BFME and gave it a 7 which I consider fair and objective considering the reviewer doesn't constantly have:"W4RH4MM3R 40K 1S T3H B3ST G4M3 3V4R!!!!!1111!!! N0TH1NG B34TS T3H L33T RTS 0F 4LL T1M3!!!!1111!!! BFM3 1S T3H SUXX0RS!!!1111!!!!" in his mind.

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=6944

swphreak
12-30-2004, 03:00 PM
I think the game is awesome. I hated Rome Total War, and Dawn of War was aight. It is all about your tastes in games.

You must not be playingt he game on right graphicmsettings or something because it looks great for me. And they can fix the AI with a patch. No big deal. I think people are just getting more and more picky.

lukeiamyourdad
12-30-2004, 07:41 PM
They've always been picky. They whine for the smallest, least important things.

The game is fun and that's the point. Graphics and sound are great.

darthfergie
01-04-2005, 10:32 PM
*shrug*
the game isn't really for the hardcore gamer in the end...but it was really quite an enjoyable single player ride. I loved the fact that they finally made cavalry more realistic in games, seeing them ride through the enemy is great (admittedly, you can see similar action in Rome: Total War...but then again, Rome: Total War isn't story driven like BfME is)
also the casual feel was kind of a welcome break after playing Rome: Total War like the addict I am. I dunno...it just was really able to fill a great hole. I played a ton of HL2, needed an strat game, got Rome: Total War, then BfME chased it down with a great story driven game, and now I'm playing through Call of Duty: United Offensive. heh. It all goes in cycles between my favorite genres...I'll be back on Rome Total War in the next week or two. heheh.
That's one good thing about a non-story driven game. Infinite replayability and such.
I was really impressed that BfME was able render the great battles of LOTR that well. They did a great job with that game. The Single player campaigns were great plays.
All in all I enjoyed it a ton, and that's what counts in my book. :)

DarthMaulUK
01-05-2005, 10:17 AM
BFME is a typical Electronics Arts cash out. The game was so poor, they havent even put screenshots on the box here in the UK!

Rome Total War is a pure Strategy game. Its not as typical in BFME where you have use just pure brute force to win. Yes, war is about that but only in R:TW can you really deploy tactics and win.

I had a small town to defend with just 630 troops against 3500 and i won the day due to the tactics i used. Something you cant do in BFME (for various reasons including the stupid 'command' point cap')

I did play BMFE and where i work I am the first they ask if we are to take on and develope an RTS game. I turned down a game call Beseiger because it wasnt worth the money.

BFME is all polish and nothing else. Like i have said time again, both R;TW and DoW have raised the RTS arena to a level the new Star Wars RTS will find hard to compete.

Yes, praise BFME for nothing having the traditional farm, wood, etc resource management - although there is some. Only in R:TW you dont have to microfarm as much.

BFME should have been a decent game that LoTR deserved but instead it has a game that would have been superb back in 1994!

DMUK

lukeiamyourdad
01-05-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
BFME is a typical Electronics Arts cash out. The game was so poor, they havent even put screenshots on the box here in the UK!

Well we do get screenies on the box here so...

Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
Rome Total War is a pure Strategy game. Its not as typical in BFME where you have use just pure brute force to win. Yes, war is about that but only in R:TW can you really deploy tactics and win.

One concentrates on giving a realistic depiction of battles, another tries to give a fantasy war a life. Like I said earlier, if you've seen in LotR, they use very little tactic and battles are won through brute strength.

Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
I had a small town to defend with just 630 troops against 3500 and i won the day due to the tactics i used. Something you cant do in BFME (for various reasons including the stupid 'command' point cap')

You can do that in BFME.


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
BFME is all polish and nothing else. Like i have said time again, both R;TW and DoW have raised the RTS arena to a level the new Star Wars RTS will find hard to compete.

Again, all of those games were developed at roughly the same time. R:TW and DoW raised that bar about 3 months earlier. If BFME was developed in 2k4 for released late 2k5, you could blame them for ignoring advancements. Besides, it's not like there's a hell of a lot of tactics in Dawn of War.


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
Yes, praise BFME for nothing having the traditional farm, wood, etc resource management - although there is some. Only in R:TW you dont have to microfarm as much.

Meh the one ressource thing is not new. The only difference is no peasant bringing it back to the CC.


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
BFME should have been a decent game that LoTR deserved but instead it has a game that would have been superb back in 1994!

You look back to far. 2k3 would be as far as I would go.
It's not very different from AoM in a way.
Perhaps we could go back to a month before Rome Total War came out.

Of course hardcore RTS players and fanatics will like R:TW more but BFME was aimed at a wider audience which it did very well. The RTS genre is a dying one, R:TW and DoW did not save it and it is probable that BFME won't neither but it is a step forward. You have to target a wider audience.

Look at World of WarCraft. Blizzard tried to create a simple MMORPG that anyone could play. It drove the MMO genre out of it's bad reputation of being just for crazy sex-less gamers who lived in their mom's basement. Everyone had that game. One of the best sellers of 2k4(behind Halo2 I believe). 500 000 copies in the first few days.

XBebop
01-05-2005, 12:30 PM
I personally think BfME is very entertaining and Rome: Total war is quite boring, personally.

darthfergie
01-05-2005, 07:42 PM
Okay...one thing DMUK. You're talking about two ENTIRELY different audiences.

Rome Total War is much too hard for the casual RTS fan. The complexities of the game just end up overwhelming people. Thus the Total War series has a reputation for the moderate to hardcore gamers, and not the casual arena.
BfME was aimed directly at the casual gamers. The streamlined gameplay shows how obvious that is. They simplified a whole ton of stuff for the game and took a whole ton of the emphasis off of resource management and population control etc etc. Things that would overwhelm any casual gamer going into Rome: Total War are not there. They were never intended to be there. This game is a perfect fun and quite enjoyable romp for casual gamers. A very VERY well made game for who it was made for.
It doesn't fit you at all because you're more serious about your depth in games.

Admit it, the game really does shine in parts. And it's quick and easy to grasp action is absolutely perfect for a change of pace.

After playing the ultra serious Rome: Total War for hours and hours on end, I've found BfMe to be a great relief.

lukeiamyourdad
01-05-2005, 07:46 PM
For the same reason, Rainbow Six isn't as popular as UT.

One's goal is to give a realistic depiction of tactical combat situations while the other is a pure arcade fragfest.

DarthMaulUK
01-05-2005, 10:16 PM
You cant have 3500+ units in BFME because you just cant create an army that size!

I think you're missing some of the point. Most of the swish and photoshop created screenies look nothing like the game. And where are these 'emotions' they kept on shouting about?!

Ok, if someone goes 'BOO!' at your troops they might run but most games do that in some way shape or form - not actually award winning.

BFME fails simply because there is no strategy. Its extremely limited - like all most recent E.A RTS games and as for the heroes..pah! They are just units with larger health bars. The game is a total missed opportunity to have really made something quite brilliant.

Xebop. How you can say Rome Total War is boring, without posting anything constructive to say why, is kinda off form. The best thing about BFME is.....you can switch it off!

Seeing how Dawn Of War and Rome Total War have won a host of various awards between team in the industry says it all. Dawn of War is simply brilliant because a lot of people didnt expect this to be any good...and it was!

BFME might win best intro or something because it really cant be called an RTS.

DMUK

lukeiamyourdad
01-06-2005, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
You cant have 3500+ units in BFME because you just cant create an army that size!I think you're missing some of the point. Most of the swish and photoshop created screenies look nothing like the game.

And yet they did explicitely said they would have 3500 units on screen. If you saw the Inside the Battle videos, you can actually see what it looks like.

Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
And where are these 'emotions' they kept on shouting about?!

How long have you played before you started the bashing? When a troll comes close to some Gondorian Swordsmen, you can see them being frightened by him. When you win a smal skirmish against an enemy battalion, you can see them cheering.

Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
Ok, if someone goes 'BOO!' at your troops they might run but most games do that in some way shape or form - not actually award winning.

It isn't award winning but it is nice eye candy and seeing them afraid helps you relate to them a bit more. Maybe you don't care but that's you.


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
BFME fails simply because there is no strategy. Its extremely limited - like all most recent E.A RTS games and as for the heroes..pah! They are just units with larger health bars. The game is a total missed opportunity to have really made something quite brilliant.

Gee I hope you like WarCraft 3's heroes. What the hell did you expect heroes to be? Aren't all RTS heroes just units with larger health bars that sometimes give bonuses to nearby allies?
When you go as far as WarCraft 3, people complain it isn't really an RTS anymore. Gee make-up your f*cking mind.


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
Seeing how Dawn Of War and Rome Total War have won a host of various awards between team in the industry says it all. Dawn of War is simply brilliant because a lot of people didnt expect this to be any good...and it was!

So? A game has to win awards to be good? There's hosts of games out there that people play and never won an award and tons of games that won awards that no one plays.

Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
BFME might win best intro or something because it really cant be called an RTS.

Well you've just redefined the genre I guess. BFME isn't an RTS anymore. Gee.

XBebop
01-06-2005, 11:56 AM
My review of Rome: Total War

Two humongous armies move at each other at a snails pace for 5 minutes, then they clash... boring. The fighting isn't even exciting unless you use the mumakil cheat. Strategy? Nope. I hate micro-managing all these damn armies too.

BfME is better becuase of smaller army size, and great heroes. DarthMaul, have you even looked at a Rank 10 Gandalf? He can kill entire armies with one of his powers! Only a bigger health bar my ass.


* Has a big foam hand and a flag saying "lukiamyoudad * You go girl!

lukeiamyourdad
01-06-2005, 01:21 PM
Uh I'm a guy. But thanks for the cheering :D

It ends up being opinions only.

Just wondering, DMUk, are you sure it's the game that you don't like and not EA as a whole?
If not then I see little reason for you or any other R:TW or DoW fan to so violently bash a game.
I mean, like you said they both won various awards so it's obvious which game is better even though I prefer BFME closely followed by DoW and R:TW. It's just a preference.
I even admitted that in technical terms, both DoW and R:TW are obviously better games.
I think you got a gripe against EA.

pbguy1211
01-07-2005, 05:37 PM
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Welcome back to meeeeeeeeee!

BFMe... where to begin... I absolutely HATE the lack of AI. Drives me f'n nuts. I keep some cavalry units on the side behind some archers... and if a pikeman gets close enough... they run into the pikes. Lovely. So they run into pikes, and if I have a group of units getting picked off by archers, they just sit there and don't react and just die. Again, lovely.

The other thing is the lack of any workers and the ability for the noobs to turtle forever. Complete lack of any required skill.

Why did I never post here again? Oh yeah, the viruses... how they coming?

[edit]
that being said, i still think it's a pretty good game. it's just not a real RTS game.

Fishflesh
01-08-2005, 12:33 AM
i played singel player mission and about 20 multiplayer games.
and have some things i hate about BFME.

the good side is overpowerd...thay can get ent,horses , elf,eagels,armys whit all the bonus points and can get the army of dead for only 10 points.... and what does the evil side get ...nothing!

thay get resorsos upgrades and some stupid rain that gives your heros a bid more power and does not even hurt the good side...unlike the goodside sun cloud... alsow the ground change cost 1 point at mordor and 3 at isengard... and a balrog cost 20 points!!! man when do you ever get 20 points in a multiplayer game...and it cant be summond inside a base unlike the army of dead. and is killed by eagels or gandalf whit 1 shot!.

alsow the good site has a cassle... and why does the evil side not? i think both isengard and mordor had a ford in the movies...
and the heros of isengard are realy to few and weak.almost everybody plays good side in mutiplayer simply becose this game is not ballaced well...

i hope some patch can fix it...

conclusion = UNBALANCED

i agree whit DarthMaulUK that BFME is poor, but still entertaining.
(only in mutiplayer and skimish, singel player missions are great)
on the other hand C&C genrals was not bad unlike what u sad.
I have not played rome total war so cant say anything about that.

FroZticles
01-08-2005, 01:54 AM
Most RTS that have had all unique sides have not got them balanced without a series of patches.

The rain power can really hurt the good side players if they are using the theoden, eomer with horses there leadership bonus is gone making them useless until theoden gets his glorious charge or eomer's looting ability. It will also get rid of Gandalfs leadership. Also the weird thing is when they use it ents can still catch on fire you would think that the rain put the flames out.

Lurtz is very strong at killing heroes. Saruman is a bit weak compared to his good counterpart Gandalf but he does have his advantages.

lukeiamyourdad
01-08-2005, 08:35 AM
Unleashing a Balrog inside an enemy base is way deadlier then the army of the dead. You can wipe out all enemy buildings. I do not know how your Gandalf killed a Balrog in a single shot but he must use a lot of spells in order to do kill it.


Rain and Mordor's Dark Clouds(can't remember the exact name) are just the same as the good side's sun clouds.

The good side has very few numbers and little siege equipment(aside from Gondor's trebuchet who aren't that effective against buildings).

Eagles are killed by archers with relative ease and are weaker then their nazgul counterparts.

Remember that the evil side relies heavily on numbers rather then strong units. That's why they have all those ressource bonuses that helps them spam units.
The good side is only slighty easier to play with.

swphreak
01-08-2005, 09:52 AM
I've gotten the Balrog tons of times. Of course when I spawned it, the Balrog killed most of my ally's army and all of mine <.<

But I still destroyed the enemy.


As for the 3500 units ont he screen at once. hmm

4 Good armies = 600 Command points
4 Evil armies = 1200 Command points
=1800.

Not counting the elf, ent, rohirrim, ect powers. Four evil armies = 2400 command points.

How about the Battle for Helms Deep? or Battle for Minas Tirith?

All EA has to do is release a patch to fix the AI issues...

As for Rome, it wasn't really that complicated. It was just really boring. Takes like 5 minutes for units to get anywhere... and I know about the fast forward.

And as a defense whore, you can't turtle forever. There are siege weapons that can attack out of range from Towers/Trebuchets. Don't forget the siege towers.

Wow, awards! Gee! "X" sucks because it didn;t get any worthless awards! Rome may have got some award, but I still think it sucks.

Like luke said, it's all about opinions.

Keep on expressing your negative opinions, and I will continue to express my opinions.

lukeiamyourdad
01-08-2005, 12:24 PM
Still, if you can push someone back to his fortifications, he's only left with a vertain amount of farms inside his base while you control the rest of the map with all the camps, settlements and outpost. You can easily outproduce the enemy at that points.

saberhagen
01-09-2005, 01:03 AM
I'm really into DoW atm but I'll admit it's not perfect. There's a lot to learn, but once you've learnt it all, I don't think there's going to be much variety there, especially as there are no random maps and even with the patches there are only 9 maps for 1v1. When everyone knows the ideal build order for every combination of civs on every map it'll just come down to who makes the fewest microing mistakes. Another problem is that the design of some of the maps makes turtling easy despite the fact that the game itself is supposed to make turtling unviable.

But enough negativity. Why am I slagging off a game I love?

XBebop
01-09-2005, 09:32 AM
Battle For Middle Earth: Has flashy, shiny, graphical special moves

Rome: No flashy, shiny, or graphical special moves.

Have I made my point? If not, here's and explanation: LOTR nerds are just stupid enough ( or atleast 99% of them that buy this game ) that they are completely mezmorized when they see the effects in this game. Some of them buy it twice to see if itll double or something. Rome has nothing shiny or flashy... OOooooOO! SHINY OBJECT! * franticly chases *

swphreak
01-09-2005, 11:32 AM
Are you saying that I am a LotR nerd and that it the sole reason why I purchased Battle for Middle Earth? The fact that I think it's a fun game has nothing to do with it?

XBebop
01-10-2005, 06:53 PM
Yes, That AND it has shiny, flashy special effects.

swphreak
01-11-2005, 11:07 AM
That shows what little you know about me. Go play your Rome Total Suckage because it is vastly superior to me and BFME.

Your opinion is vastly superior to mine. :rolleyes:

XBebop
01-12-2005, 08:37 AM
And you're a complete dolt. I hate Rome: Total Gay. Read the other posts before you post one, idiot.

Fishflesh
01-12-2005, 11:22 AM
ok then...

keep it calm pepole, all thake a deep breath and be done whit it. :rolleyes:

XBebop
01-12-2005, 12:58 PM
Bu-but... I don't wanna!

swphreak
01-13-2005, 11:01 AM
You're the the one calling people nerds because they buy a certain game.

Guess what, you're on a Star Wars forum, welcome to the geekdom ;)

XBebop
01-13-2005, 12:04 PM
I said 99% of LOTR nerds that buy the game. Not that everyone that buys the game is 99% LOTR nerd.

Eets
01-13-2005, 06:03 PM
Both of you, go sit in your corners and have a cold shower. No RTS is worth getting this worked up about.

Thread closed. Sorry DMUK, but the flame in here was singing the HTML code.