EA Trails New Lord Of The Rings Games For 2004

Thanks to EGM for their article discussing the latest Electronic Arts games based on the Lord Of The Rings movie franchise. In talking to executive producer Neil Young, previously creator of unconventional online title Majestic, the existing, well-received Return Of The King game is dissected, but there's also information on further LOTR games due in 2004. Young discusses the already unveiled "[PC] RTS game we're developing called The Battles of Middle-Earth, which is being developed by our Los Angeles studio by the team that did Command & Conquer Generals", but also talks about "a new game - currently entitled The Lord of the Rings Trilogy... due out by the end of next year." According to Young, this multi-platform action title strives not to be a sequel too far: "The idea isn't to just take you back through the fiction again, but to give you some other characters who you might not expect to be able to play, and really extend the multiplayer features.. [and] develop the online feature."

Games like this are better than the books

[ObviousGuy]

Books are so linear. Games like this allow you to experience alternate endings better than Choose Your Own Adventure ever could.

Here be logic!

[Anonymous Coward]

Books, written after decades of contemplation of the history of middle earth, just don't stack up against hacking trolls and orcs in a video game churned out in a few months. Why? Because the book is linear and the games, well, pretty much are too.

Re:Games like this are better than the books

[martinthebrit]

I disagree. You are free to read the pages of the book in any order you like. Granted, it may not always make much sense, but how more non-linear to you want.

Re:Oh Goody

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, nobody complained about that in Neverwinter Nights...

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The team in L.A. = the artists formerly known as Westwood?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how they can call it the 'team who worked on C&C Generals' given that 70% of that team left EA shortly after that project. (Attrition)

Re:Hmm

[mad.frog]

If by "Attrition" you mean "Leaving in disgust after being treated like shit", then yes...

Seriously, most of that team is gone.

Neil Young?

[jpop32]

In talking to executive producer Neil Young...

So, Neil [hyperrust.org] decided to try for a different career? Well, I guess I like him as a singer/songwriter better.

ROTK

[captainstupid]

I really didn't like the ROTK game. I loved TTT, but ROTK fails miserably for only one reason.

The camera.

Most of the time while playing the game it is difficult to even see your character. Many enemies will gather around you and beat the living daylights out of you with little chance for you to retaliate because you have no idea where you are. Even if you know that you're in a general area, timing attacks is nearly impossible because your character is COMPLETELY HIDDEN. Even if you're doing relatively well, one enemy can completely obstruct your viewpoint and render your fighter invisible.

I really wanted to like this game because TTT was so much fun, but ROTK is a perfect example of how an otherwise well produced game can completely fail (IMO) because of a single problem.

Re:ROTK

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy I played this coopratively with had the same problem. I didn't really because they made parrying so easy. Just keep tapping parry until you can figure our where you are, and if you have the move, follow up with an orc/man/uruki bane and booya, damn skippy mode: ACTIVATE. The only time it was something of a problem was when my buddy would space out and drag the camera so that me and my mob were off screen.

If you play it on the xbox, go to a mission, get through the cinematic, pause it, hold L and

Re:ROTK

[meta-monkey]

The Two Towers game was okay. The graphics weren't that great, and some of the levels were boring. However, I thought ROTK was great. I'm not done with it yet...I'm still trying to beat the Pelennor fields. My only real complaint is when it switches to a game-rendered cut scene during the middle of the action, so you can't move, but it lets your enemies have a free swing at you when you get control back. It's like they started the game a half a second before they put the camera back on you and gave you control. Now that's annoying. Other than that, great game!

Re:ROTK

[meta-monkey]

Killing the 60 guys is easy. The Oliphants aren't even that bad. What annoys the hell out of me is, I kill an Oliphant, and then sprint over to shoot the Witch King, but there are a bunch of warriors/uruks there on the platform where I'm supposed to shoot from, so I've got clear them out before I can shoot, and it just takes forever. I'm lucky if I get two shots in on each try, and then I have to run all the way across the battlefield because the next Oliphant convieniently appears on the other side. GA

Re:ROTK

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried it that way the first time. HARD. Took like a half hour. If your near level 7 and have the sweeter projectiles. It's quick.

1) The side the Oliphant appears on is somewhat random.

2) The winning strategy seems to be the minimum number of trips (obviously)

3) Warrior bane is your friend.

4) When you run to the witch king ignore the first guy. Let him rush you. Just fling shit at the king.

5) When he get's close, parry to set up the bane move. Which is long, but it kills him instantly.

6) This

Re:ROTK

[meta-monkey]

That's about what I figured. My guys are all level 7, and have the projectile upgrades, and I tried the sauron's bane/warrior bane move to get perfect, but I just thought it took too long. I forget about the aura, though...I'll give that a try next.

Actually, I was thinking I might just not bother trying to kill the oliphant before attacking the witch king. It takes awhile for the oliphant to make it all the way to merry and eoywn, and the witch king comes on a timer independent of the Oliphant. You can

Re:ROTK

[Reapy]

Yeah, that's what worked with my friend and me in co-op. As soon as the witch king appeared we ran up there and took him out with both of us firing the bows. It also pays to make sure you are fully charged up on each bow shot, since it does damage quicker then if you fired as fast as you can.

Great game though, one of the best movie licensed game's I've ever seen.

A few changes....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been a while since I read the books, but I'm not sure I remember Aragorn having, "a devastating upgrade that allows him to swing his sword and sets enemies on fire and shoots out fireballs in eight directions."

The Rangers apparently know how to kick some serious ass.

Re:A few changes....

[burns210]

These Rangers aren't just any Rangers... They are POWER Rangers. Wait, wrong show. my bad.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[Crockerboy]

There is already one [middle-earthonline.com] being made based on Middle Earth.

Milk that cow for all it's worth, baby.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tolken family shouldn't have any say about it. His innovation is done, he had an extended period of time to milk a monopoly based on that creation, and now he's dead. It's time for the living to pick up the torch, and this generation shouldn't be punished for having been born 100 years too early.

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[WWWWolf]

EA is definitely a bunch of Evil Capitalist Pigs[tm], and have been so for a looong time. I have no love left for them after what they did to Bullfrog and Origin.

And they have the game license to LotR movie, which naturally has one problem: EA is in position where it doesn't matter to them if the game is any good, they'll still make tons of money. Just a little twitch in the marketing muscle and they're set...

The movie trilogy has been a success so far: The makers actually cared about the book, and it s

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[Matrix272]

When MMORPG based on the LORD of the rings story will come out, that's when we'll know that the Tolkien family will have totally sold out.

First, there already IS a MMORPG based on LOTR... but that's already been mentioned.

Second, no offense, but FUCK THE TOLKIEN FAMILY. Especially Christopher Tolkien, the old piece of shit. It's HIS FAULT that Peter Jackson won't get to make The Hobbit [ign.com]. Although that article doesn't mention it, I've read other places that JRR's grandson, the son of Christopher Tolkien,

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[Ty_Webb]

On a different note - the same concept applies to the Star Wars franchise. Until George Lucas dies, there will be no more SW movies after Episode 3 (unless he has a drastic change of mind, but that's extremely doubtful). The question is - who will Lucas give the rights of the franchise to?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[Matrix272]

I don't agree. While I don't like the idea that Peter Jackson may not make The Hobbit, I still want the Tolkien family to allow talented people who actually give a shit about the story to make games, and not anyone who has deep pockets.

The only Tolkien that has a problem with Peter Jackson or the new movies is Christopher. His son, whose name I can't remember, is a grown man, and likes the idea of The Hobbit... and actually likes the new movies.

Besides, can you really say that the people that made the

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can yo u say "too many games"?

[JVert]

JRR sold LOTR rights but not the Hobbit.

Re:Trails?

[Quinn]

Someone mod this up, because I also have no idea what the fuck that sentence is supposed to mean. Maybe I could have RTFA, but isn't the title supposed to tell you what it's about, not throw you into a conniption of confusion like trying to understand the punchline in some goddamned Beetle Bailey cartoon?

Re:Trails?

[Haeleth]

I suspect it's "trails" as in "trailers".

Wheres the strategy?

[MMaestro]

Other than a few parts in the books/movies the battles usually ended up sounding/looking like a sloppy mass X unit attack on the enemy position. I just can't see the LOTR series making it in the strategy genre. Action genre? Hell yeah. Adventure genre? If you can do it right. RPG genre? Maybe. Strategy genre? Doubtful. Racing genre? Over J.R.R. Tolkain's dead body.

Re:Wheres the strategy?

[Samedi1971]

Other than a few parts in the books/movies the battles usually ended up sounding/looking like a sloppy mass X unit attack on the enemy position. I just can't see the LOTR series making it in the strategy genre.

Tolkien invented the Orc Rush!

Re:Wheres the strategy?

[Colazar]

Well, when I think "strategy" I think of fighting out the whole war, not just one battle. Resource and troop allocation, and that whole bit. Probably more of a turn-based game than RTS, though you could probably do it both ways. (You know, something with the Europa Universalis engine would be fiendish, now that I think about it.)

Of course, I also played Middle-Earth PBM for several years, where you do just that, so maybe I'm biased. (MEPBM is a fun game, btw, if you've got a year or two.)

Neil Young

[fallingdown]

I'm happy to see that Neil Young's career didn't suffer from the whole Majestic debacle. The concept of Majestic was so exciting and I think it would have been a much bigger hit if they had only allowed users to play at their own speed rather than in the 20 minute spurts dictated by the designers. I hope that EA has seen past the mistakes of this first implimentation and on to other iterations of this exciting and different form of gameplay.