U-Games

4 members own The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows Of Angmar.
YanniBiagraSagapo
You can manage your own collection by registering or logging in.

Game Details

The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows Of Angmar

The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows Of Angmar

Available on :
Pc
 
Developed by :
Published by :
Genre :
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

Description

The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar will allow players to forge heroic legacies in the ongoing struggle for Middle-earth. Gamers of all levels will establish their unique reputations, explore incredibly detailed realms and join ...

Articles

24-06-07 Review for Pc 15-07-03 Preview for Pc

RSS Feeds

Feeds are per category

News

PC Review: LOTR Online: Shadows of Angmar

Posted on Sunday, 24 June 2007 by Speed, source: Fragland
55_t2
Herrdidi has checked out Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar to conclude that World of Warcraft has finally met its match.

Want to know why LOTRO is better? Just click here and read!
In other news:

6 Comment(s)

derf26 (old)

derf26 (old)

You gave that game 95%?

What the hell? Throughout your review it sounds like you're gonna give the game 80%. You say that's this game is basically WoW with a very small amount of differences. The PvP still has no thrill at all whatsoever, as does the PvE since there are no real losses (armour and weapons bound to you). And despite this you give this game a 9.8 in gameplay?

In the Pros, you even mentioned it was innovating, even though you yourself admitted that the game was simply following the standard fantasy MMO mold.

I don't understand this. But in any case, what I can say is this. LOTRO is better than WoW in the sense that a game released in 2007 is better than one released in 2005.

I mean, if you give this game 95%, then if AOC holds on to its promises (and from the vids it is), you'll have to give Conan 120%, because that game is revolutionary for an MMO and breaks the mold.

I can't understand why games like LOTRO or WoW which are so much worse than a game like Oblivion get such high ratings just because they are MMOs? Why does this automatically grant them the right to suck. Why does this grant them the right to clone WoW and other games without real innovation and receive 95% ratings? And how the hell do you find it interesting even in the least PvPing in a game with no significant risk? These MMOs have been dumbed down and you're just accepting it.

When a game like WoW is cloned, the clone should receive lower ratings! Not higher! The only reason the graphics are better is because WoW is two years older, and in terms of any significant improvements, that's about it.

When I started playing LOTRO within a few minutes I recognised all the controls and most of the gameplay. Sure, it makes life easier. But if you can hop from one game to another and adjust in a mere 5 minutes, doesn't this tell you something?

How can you play the same game over and over again, seemingly blind and oblivious to the fact that the only change is the name, the skins, and a couple of features. And "teleporting"? How is that new in a game? RPGs have had teleporting for decades, and this is somehow innovating? Well maybe it is compared to WoW, but WoW is hardly an interesing game. Sure it has subscribers, but that's about all it has.

Maybe i'm being overly critical, but that's becuase you gave the game 95 bloody percent. Oblivion doesn't deserve 95%, Half Life 2 doesn't deserve 95%. How the hell does this deserve 95%?

My point is that the basic faults present in WoW and similar fantasy MMOs which ruin the thrill and risk in the game are still there. All the improvements you see are very shallow. I wouldn't give this game more than 80%. Polishing old games doesn't make them new.
You gave that game 95%? What the hell? Throughout your review it sounds like you're gonna give the game 80%. You say that's this game is basically WoW with a very small amount of differences. The PvP still has no thrill at all whatsoever, as does the PvE since there are no real losses (armour and weapons bound to you). And despite this you give this game a 9.8 in gameplay? In the Pros, you even mentioned it was innovating, even though you yourself admitted that the game was simply following the standard fantasy MMO mold. I don't understand this. But in any case, what I can say is this. LOTRO is better than WoW in the sense that a game released in 2007 is better than one released in 2005. I mean, if you give this game 95%, then if AOC holds on to its promises (and from the vids it is), you'll have to give Conan 120%, because that game is revolutionary for an MMO and breaks the mold. I can't understand why games like LOTRO or WoW which are so much worse than a game like Oblivion get such high ratings just because they are MMOs? Why does this automatically grant them the right to suck. Why does this grant them the right to clone WoW and other games without real innovation and receive 95% ratings? And how the hell do you find it interesting even in the least PvPing in a game with no significant risk? These MMOs have been dumbed down and you're just accepting it. When a game like WoW is cloned, the clone should receive lower ratings! Not higher! The only reason the graphics are better is because WoW is two years older, and in terms of any significant improvements, that's about it. When I started playing LOTRO within a few minutes I recognised all the controls and most of the gameplay. Sure, it makes life easier. But if you can hop from one game to another and adjust in a mere 5 minutes, doesn't this tell you something? How can you play the same game over and over again, seemingly blind and oblivious to the fact that the only change is the name, the skins, and a couple of features. And "teleporting"? How is that new in a game? RPGs have had teleporting for decades, and this is somehow innovating? Well maybe it is compared to WoW, but WoW is hardly an interesing game. Sure it has subscribers, but that's about all it has. Maybe i'm being overly critical, but that's becuase you gave the game 95 bloody percent. Oblivion doesn't deserve 95%, Half Life 2 doesn't deserve 95%. How the hell does this deserve 95%? My point is that the basic faults present in WoW and similar fantasy MMOs which ruin the thrill and risk in the game are still there. All the improvements you see are very shallow. I wouldn't give this game more than 80%. Polishing old games doesn't make them new.
Quote
Posted on 15:35, June 24th 2007
L0k1-

L0k1-

you should go and search for a reviewing job :)
you should go and search for a reviewing job :)
Quote
Posted on 18:48, June 24th 2007
Herrdidi

Herrdidi

I guess you're right in one way. On the other hand I find this score is fair because of many reasons. LOTRO has a better social system than what I've seen in other MMO's (and it's just an example). I believe you'll probably be the type of MMO player playing L2 (for example) because of it's wide PVP gameplay (I can't blame you either, it's personal taste).

So, you're right in one way, and not so right in another :)
About the score, maybe it is over rated, but hell. It represents the feeling I had while playing it.
I think it's a great game.
I guess you're right in one way. On the other hand I find this score is fair because of many reasons. LOTRO has a better social system than what I've seen in other MMO's (and it's just an example). I believe you'll probably be the type of MMO player playing L2 (for example) because of it's wide PVP gameplay (I can't blame you either, it's personal taste). So, you're right in one way, and not so right in another :) About the score, maybe it is over rated, but hell. It represents the feeling I had while playing it. I think it's a great game.
Quote
Posted on 21:10, June 24th 2007
Drofder2004

Drofder2004

Over rated by far imo and I have to agree with Derf, the review is slightly misleading.
Over rated by far imo and I have to agree with Derf, the review is slightly misleading.
Quote
Posted on 14:06, June 25th 2007
Anonymous

Anonymous

I haven't actually played the game myself, just reading reviews... but you might want to hop over to IGN and read the review there. The score given is not quite as high (9.0) and it is well justified. The two distinctive qualities appear to be (i) it taps into people's love for middle earth and (ii) the lack of grinding. For me, both these points are big winners so I'm thinking of trying the game. I'd also have to agree with you that calling such a game innovative (adj. introducing new things or methods) is, well, just a bit dumb. It is pretty much the opposite really.
I haven't actually played the game myself, just reading reviews... but you might want to hop over to IGN and read the review there. The score given is not quite as high (9.0) and it is well justified. The two distinctive qualities appear to be (i) it taps into people's love for middle earth and (ii) the lack of grinding. For me, both these points are big winners so I'm thinking of trying the game. I'd also have to agree with you that calling such a game innovative (adj. introducing new things or methods) is, well, just a bit dumb. It is pretty much the opposite really.
Quote
Posted on 23:22, June 29th 2007
Anonymous

Anonymous

LOTR sucks. The graphics are not good. The games seems dated for a new release. I do not understand the hipe nor all of the high marks it is getting. Maybe in time either they will improve the game or everyone will wakeup and realize the game is crap
LOTR sucks. The graphics are not good. The games seems dated for a new release. I do not understand the hipe nor all of the high marks it is getting. Maybe in time either they will improve the game or everyone will wakeup and realize the game is crap
Quote
Posted on 02:18, July 09th 2007
 

put your comment here

Fragland Arcade Sci-Fi Belgium CrazyCamel
Metriweb TripTracker