In the interest of full disclosure, I must divulge from the outset that I'm a die-hard Lord of the Rings (LotR) fan. I don't mean that I dress up in full elven regalia and insist people address me by my Sindarin name, because I'm not that side of sane. But I can spew a few thousand years worth of Middle Earth history pretty comfortably and have been known to do so with very little provocation. In other words, my Tolkien geekdom is powerfully academic: I'm captivated by the overall mythology and the fictional history of the world he created.
It should come as no big surprise, then, that I anxiously awaited The Battle for Middle Earth (TBFME). Heck, I've wanted a good LotR-based game ever since I started using computers. The problem has always been that the games I've seen haven't captured the flavor of Tolkien's world. The mythos has always proven too rich to capture credibly.
For example, I was pretty geeked when I learned The Two Towers and The Return of the King were being developed, but both turned out to be far too limited and console-ish for me. Sadly, the recent real-time strategy (RTS) game, The War of the Ring, didn't grab me either, and the more first-person adventure-ish game, The Fellowship of the Ring, was simply too buggy and too underwhelming.
Somehow, TBFME is different. I suspect it appeals to me so immediately because it leverages my great love for Peter Jackson's definitive film adaptation of LotR. Whatever the case, though, TBFME is a good RTS game in its own right and a game worthy of the LotR tradition. Just bear in mind that you're reading the words of a Tolkien fan; as such, I'm probably too forgiving and too harsh all at once.
The phrase that went through my mind when I saw TBFME demonstrated for the first time was...
I simply lacked words to do justice to what I was seeing. Between then and my purchasing the game, some of the magic inevitably wore off, largely because I watched all of the "Inside the Battle" promotional video clips, looked at all the screen shots, and investigated virtually every aspect of the game. But even still, TBFME literally took my breath away when I first ran it.
The opening pre-rendered advertisements are a bit annoying, but the game moves pretty quickly to a pre-rendered machinima cinematic that clearly takes its inspiration from the prologue at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring film. As if that weren't cool enough, the camera then pans up an impressively rendered Barad-dûr, all the way to the eye of Sauron! In the background, Orodruin (a.k.a. Mount Doom) belches forth ominous smoke. It looks almost as good as the movie scene from which it's taken. And that's just the graphic behind the main menu for crying out loud!
What really stole my heart, though, was the living map. I think the developers missed an opportunity here, as I'll get to later, but the living map is undeniably gorgeous. I have literally sat there mousing around it, watching the little video clips in the Palantir interface, listening to Howard Shore's transcendently beautiful soundtrack, losing myself in a full-color, live-action rendering of the map I had come to know so well from the illustrations in Tolkien's books and elsewhere. Other games have provided world maps, and far more strategically functional world maps for that matter, but no other game has ever provided one this beautifully detailed.
The sun streams down majestically while shadows of clouds float gently across the landscape. A few eagles can be seen flying about the various mountains. Thick, evil, black smoke pours from within the mountain-ringed fortress that is Mordor. And all the while the eye of Sauron looks across the land. I just don't have superlatives sufficient to the task of describing the graphical beauty of the living map. It's that amazing.
And I haven't even begun to wax rhapsodic about the in-game elements. All of the environments are nicely detailed. The buildings are even more so, many of them featuring cool little bits like the practicing archers at the archery range, who will stop practicing and attack invaders if necessary. The units all look great and are well animated. Some might quibble with the level of texture detail on some of the heroes, particularly because of the close ups in some in-game cut scenes, but I think they're well done given the texture-memory limitations on most current graphics cards.
But if all of these things look good, the special effects manage somehow to be even more impressive. Rohirrim battalions kick up dust as they gallop across the land. Gandalf's special powers are a graphical treat. And some of the special sequences, as with the army of the dead or the appearance of a Balrog, are positively stunning.
In short summary, TBFME is the best looking RTS game made to date. Period. This probably shouldn't be too surprising, given that it's crafted atop an advanced, heavily tricked-out version of the SAGE engine that powered Command & Conquer: Generals (C&C:G). But even still, the developers have brought near-Hollywood quality visuals to life on a huge scale in this game. It looks awesome in every respect.
Despite all that beauty, I can't even complain that the game runs slowly! Granted, I've got pretty good hardware, but TBFME still manages to run smoothly at 1600 x 1200 x 32 bpp with all the goodies enabled. Only in the very biggest battles does my system slow down, but it still remains playable even at such a high resolution. I just can't find a flaw with the visuals in TBFME. They're absolutely perfect, given the current state of the art.
The audio isn't as startling in its beauty as the visuals, but it's pretty good nevertheless. The voice acting is absolutely top notch, though it's clear some of the hero voices weren't done by the film actors. The sound effects are uniformly wonderful. And the music, well, the music is as purely beautiful as the film soundtracks from which it's taken.
Further, all the audio elements come together in an absolutely flawless implementation. There simply isn't anything to complain about. Heck, even the various heroes' lines somehow don't become nearly as repetitive as they do in other games. It seems like there are a number of different clips used, but it also seems like they're used sparingly enough that they are always welcome rather than tiring.
In short, I can't think of a substantive complaint with the audio either. I guess it would have been nice if all the relevant movie actors could have been brought on board to record dialogue, but the imitators used are such talented mimics that it really doesn't bother the ear.
Let me start by applauding the developers' move away from the C&C:G interface. As one who cut his RTS teeth on Starcraft (SC), the C&C:G interface was always uncomfortable to me. TBFME does much better, in my mind at least, by giving the player a wholly consistent approach. A left click selects, while a right click does something. That may seem pretty basic, but that consistency goes a long way.
Also in the plus column is the Palantir mechanism for the minimap, selecting powers, and so forth. It's not merely a nicely themed bit of interface either; it's also quite functional, making it easy to see what's really happening. Too many other games show terrain details that only obscure the larger picture, which is why one uses a minimap in the first place.
Yet room for improvement clearly remains. There are, in fact, several legitimate complaints to be leveled against the interface, the most egregious among which is that there is precisely zero facility for changing control configuration. Much as I like most of the key bindings in TBFME, it sure would be nice to be able to change a few. It sure would make it easier to leverage hero powers, for example, if I could custom-bind them to my preferred keys.
Another serious complaint is that the interface doesn't aggregate well. In any game wherein different units have different special powers, it is practically criminal to force the player to select only those units to activate said powers. For example, various units can be placed in different formations in order to increase their effectiveness in particular situations. But if I select more than one type of unit, I can no longer access these features. Instead, I must select only one type of unit at a time in order to gain access to said features.Warcraft III does a much better job, for example, by giving me buttons for all the special powers of all selected units.
This makes it more difficult than it should be, for example, to micromanage intermixed groups of Rohirrim warriors and archers. The player's most reliable work-around is to bind specific types of units to control groups, but this eats up the limited number of available groups very quickly. It would also be nice if, in addition to the binding to select all military units, it were possible to select only the visible military units. Too often I've left important locations undefended because I've accidentally hit the key to select all military units on the map.
It's also worth complaining that the circular menu system is too rigid in forcing the player to wait for the menu to unfold completely before selecting an option. A key element of any RTS play is the speed with which the player can issue orders to his buildings/units. TBFME forces the player to wait a second or two every time a menu opens before any commands can be given. Far too often I've clicked the menu too early and haven't realized that the build order didn't "take".
The menu system is also a bit clumsy, insofar as it would be really nice to have options to exit the current game and return to the main menu or exit all the way to Windows without first having to back up through several sub-menus. But this is a far more minor complaint. The menu system is certainly pretty, but better organization would help.
A less minor complaint is that any choice on the living map is essentially binding. I've accidentally initiated battles more than once. Granted, I can always reload a saved game, but it would be much simpler to let the player undo a mistake. It would also be nice if power selection were available on the world map, if for no reason other than it can be too hectic to spend points in the middle of a battle.
I have a couple of basic complaints with the game mechanics, first and foremost being that committing troops is sometimes irreversible. The first time I committed a battalion of archers to a tower, I couldn't find any way to get them out of there when I needed them elsewhere. When I discovered that, in fact, there is no way, and that this was a deliberate design decision, I couldn't believe it. Similarly, battalions that are joined (e.g., archers to swordsmen) cannot be unjoined, which is just as irritating or arguably more so. The unit cap is low enough in the first place without having to worry about such inflexibility.
Second, though the living map is absolutely heartbreakingly beautiful for any Tolkien fan, it could be more interactive. It's great to be able to zoom in on a portion of the map, but, hard as it is for me to believe, there's no way to zoom back out! I would literally sit and browse around the map, just soaking up the ambience, if I could pull back out after having zoomed into an area. It also seems a missed opportunity that the map doesn't play into the larger, strategic game. Mechanics borrowed from board games like Risk or other RTS games like Rise of Nations could much improve TBFME.
In the plus column, though, TBFME innovates in some interesting ways. For example, the idea that units gain veteran status is an old one, but the idea that buildings gain veteran status is an interesting and heretofore untapped extension in my experience. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this: (1) it makes duplicate structures an iffy proposition, and (2) it renders painful the lack of any facility for decommissioning units.
Perhaps (1) isn't really such a big deal, but I'm accustomed to parallel production, queuing up multiple units at multiple buildings and letting those orders be carried out in the background. But if a building's "experience" limits the units it can produce, well, then I can't easily build in parallel, can I? This wouldn't be such a big deal were it not for (2), but when the player finds the need to shift strategy in mid-game, it really sucks that the only way to get rid of units is to send them off to die.
Which is further complicated, I should point out, by the persistence mechanic. In TBFME, units that survive one mission are available in the next, and that's a great feature if for no reason other than it gives me a reason to care about each individual battalion. But too often I have found myself having several crack battalions of exactly the wrong kind of troops. Because I can't simply decommission or retire said units, and because the unit cap is generally so low, I'm stuck sending my best troops off to die merely to make room to build others. That sucks.
Also in the plus column, though, is the introduction of emotion, though I think the implementation could be better. One of the coolest details about the game is that units react to other units. When I see a group of swordsmen cower before an enormous troll, I can identify with them. That's a nice touch because it too invests the player in his troops; it helps make them more than just fodder.
What I don't see is that it has any substantive bearing on the game. Whereas a squad's morale can break in Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War (DoW), often with very realistically unpleasant consequences, a battalion in TBFME may act afraid but it will still fight, seemingly without any impairment. In short, it's a great idea as it is, but I think it could have been better still. Having to worry about the morale of my troops would have added a welcome dimension.
What's not to like about the game's story? TBFME touches on all the major battles in LotR while also letting the player explore the lesser known, minor battles. The overarching story is the great war of the ring, so game stories simply don't get any better. The one criticism I will make is that the game doesn't do a good job of tying it all together.
In other words, I can deeply appreciate the game's story because I've read LotR dozens of times. For those who haven't read the books or seen the movies, though, the experience will be much different. The game's mechanics are sufficiently simplified that the target audience is clearly not limited to hard core RTS fans, so why limit the story's presentation to the point where only LotR fans will get the most from it?
There's a lot more background here than in any other RTS game, that's for sure, and I appreciated every bit of it. I'm just not convinced that the game is going to deliver nearly so compelling an experience to those who aren't already LotR fans.
Here the verdict is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, there are a lot of battles to fight, great cinematics, neat cut scenes, beautifully detailed maps, buildings, and units. Yet on the other hand, I don't find clear, conceptual distinctions between all the elements and their purposes. For example, how does it really improve the game that the men of Gondor are separate from those of Rohan? The two armies differ only in minor ways, which makes their separation feel contrived. Separating the forces of Isenguard from those of Mordor makes a bit more sense, but that too stretches the point.
The general variety of units doesn't help much either. Maybe I'm still stuck on SC, but I'm accustomed to having units that differ greatly among themselves and from one faction to the next. TBFME doesn't provide nearly so compelling an arsenal. The cavalry units in one faction are pretty much the same as the cavalry units of another. They look different, to be sure, but they don't feel different at all. The same is the case of the largely generic archers, swordsmen, etc. The general complaint is that the developers just haven't given us a sufficiently broad, tactical palette.
Much the same thing can be said of the game's artificial intelligence (AI), insofar as it has some great touches but falls down in other respects. For example, it's great that my units will form up more or less intelligently, but they won't subsequently stay together when traveling. If I send a group of cavalry and Ents to the attack, for example, the Ents will arrive just in time to sweep up the cavalry's corpses. I don't get the inconsistency: why tweak the AI until it's smart enough to arrange units intelligently if it can't maintain relative positions when moving? Go figure.
It's also both interesting and frustrating that the player is so limited in his building choices. The fact that settlements can be constructed only in certain locations focuses the game more clearly on taking and holding those areas. This adds an interesting strategic consideration as a whole, but the design of the various maps doesn't seem to leverage it much. In other words, it doesn't add anything compelling to the gameplay; it just makes it harder to establish intelligent positions for attack and defense.
It probably doesn't help that terrain doesn't seem to play much role at all. Oh, it's all very good looking to be sure, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting on the plains is any different from fighting in a stream, in a forest, etc. There's very little terrain variation to begin with, and it makes it all the less interesting that there's little reason to care about it. The only reason to care about terrain, in fact, is to secure a new site on which to build, and that's a pity.
Sadly, the selection of buildings is also pretty limited. Most of the build locations on any given map usually allow a mere three buildings and no defensive fortifications. This makes it pretty hard to hold onto any of the smaller settlements. The only good solution is to leave a lot of troops to defend every settlement, but the unit cap makes that an impossible task.
Worse, there isn't much diversity in the buildings either. When playing the good guys, for example, resource gathering consists solely of farms, and there aren't any significant choices to be made as to where to build them because of the limitations on locations. And, typically, unit production is handled by one or two buildings at most. You'll always have to build a barracks, and you'll often build an archery range, but that's about it. Stables can help, as can an armory, but there are only a couple of "technologies" to be researched, so even that is pretty limited.
The heroes also fall prey to this sort of criticism, insofar as there's almost no useful distinction between Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. The "big boys" (e.g., Gandalf, Aragorn, et al.) are interesting enough, but the lesser heroes (e.g., Eomer, Eowyn, et al.) aren't nearly so useful, and the hobbits are almost useless. It doesn't help either that the bad guys have practically no "heroes" by comparison.
I guess the big complaint is that the game's content seems to have been simplified to the point whereat it is less than it should be. Playing Rohan just wasn't much different from playing Gondor, which just wasn't much different from playing Isenguard, which just wasn't much different from playing Mordor. The only major distinctions seem to be found in the powers available. Those are great, but they should be the icing on the cake; the bulk of an RTS game's value lies in its buildings/units, and that's where TBFME falls a bit flat.
I haven't played as many multi-player games as I would like to provide a solid review, but I think I can safely draw some generalizations as it is. First, the balance is off: Gandalf is simply too powerful. I think most players will agree on that, and I have hope that the balance changes in the next patch (announced as v1.03) might finally fix the game. For the time being, though, it puts something of a damper on playing it.
I'm happy to say that the network code seems good, or at least I haven't noticed any significant lag. I'm also happy to say that the multi-player game is as compelling as the single-player game. The basic problem, though, is that it just isn't as gripping as I had hoped, again because of the comments already made about buildings, units, heroes, and so forth. The next patch should improve things significantly, but only time will tell.
Suffice it to say that the multi-player aspect is a worthwhile and fun extension of the single-player aspect, but it suffers from all the same limitations and has some unique balance issues of its own.
I have been sitting on this review for months. I began it, in fact, the very day the game was released (12/06/2004), and little has changed in the last six months. The reason it has taken me this long to post it is because I keep walking away from the game. I tore into it the day it was released and absolutely loved everything I was seeing. I had a blast with it. And then, as I got a dozen battles or so into the good campaign, it started to fall flat. Why? Because I was just doing the same stuff over and over with the same units.
Then I got distracted by other things, and other games, and didn't come back to TBFME for some time. When I finally did come back to it, I dove right in and started having a lot of fun again. But then it started to go flat and lose its luster. It's hard for me to say this, but the game is quite good overall; it's just not the RTS game I was hoping it would be. I am still looking for the next SC, the next RTS game that pulls me in hard and won't let go; TBFME just isn't that game.
In the final analysis, though, TBFME is definitely a good RTS game for LotR fans. It delivers a lot of content, and it's true enough to the larger mythos that any serious LotR fan should have fun with it. It's also an exceptionally good RTS game for novices because of the simplified choices it gives the player in terms of building locations, buildings, units, and so forth. It's a very approachable RTS in this respect.
I can't recommend it so broadly to everyone else, however, and particularly not to RTS junkies who expect both depth and diversity from their games. I had fun with it, and I don't think I'm quite done with it yet. I'll be particularly interested to see how the new patch improves things. It's good, but it's not the great RTS game I was hoping it would be. Perhaps the recently announced sequel will be, but the jury for that isn't even empanelled.
11/18/2005