Anyone played this game? I find it very detailed and fun but the new game that has come out - Battle for Middle-earth 2 far outstrips it. I like the new idear of controlling your own command points in skirmish - that was the biggest drawback on the first game.
I only own the first game, although I've heard the second one is better. I thought the first one was an amazing game, looks like I'll have to get this new one now. I'm not sure if I know what you mean by the command points, maybe I just haven't played the game in too long.
Unfortunately I haven't ever played it...that's what happens when you've got a Mac! Anyhow, if anyone finds a version for Macintosh let me know 'cause I really really want to play! Every time I see it I wish I could play it, it's the only part of Tolkien fanticism I seem to be deprived of!
__________________
The more I consumath the more I hunger for, render me the Silmarils!
Command points are what limits the amount of troops you control at any time. The command points are auto set in the first game to quite a low level thus disabling vast armies. However In the second game you can change it up to 100 000 as opposed to a meger 200 in the first game!!!
__________________
Utślie'n aurė! Aiya Eldaliė ar Atanatįri, utślie'n aurė! Auta i lómė! Aurė entuluva!
Ooooh! *palm face* I do know exactly what you're talking about, and I totally agree. The command points being limited to 200 was definently a source of great annoyance for me. Especially when trying to beat the game a second time, and while at Helms Deep everyone died leaving me oly Eomer and a few odd guys left to beat the remaining forces of Isengard, lol. Thanks for explaining that to me and making me remember Glorfindel.
TM, I don't know, I've only got it for the PC. Any games that are originally meant for the computer, I always find they are disappointing when you get them for PS2, but that's just my opinion. It could be different with these games.
Nope not available on PS2 and only available on PC and a lesser equivilent on Xbox 360.
Also the game specs are very demanding. Your PC HAS to be Microsoft XP, 256 MB minimum memory, 64 MB ATI graphis, 1.6 processor speed min and a few other specs. - I paid £140 ($200) just to get my computer good enough to play it!
__________________
Utślie'n aurė! Aiya Eldaliė ar Atanatįri, utślie'n aurė! Auta i lómė! Aurė entuluva!
Also on the new version you can play Elves, Dwarves, Modor, men of the West, Isengard, and Goblins on most locations - Minas T, Helms D, Isengard, Dol Guldur, Minas morgul, Rivendell, Grey havens etc (about 30 or more) and all the main places you can now play on skirmish not just campaign!
__________________
Utślie'n aurė! Aiya Eldaliė ar Atanatįri, utślie'n aurė! Auta i lómė! Aurė entuluva!
Is BFME II worth buying? I've wanted it for like a reallly long while and I don't want to buy it, just to find that a) it won't work on my computer or b) it has a lot of bugs/glitches/what-not. Also, do you have to register with some online gaming thingy to play it? I went through a whole fiasco about that with a different game a long time ago....
Providing you stick to the above specs you won't have any problems.
I highly recommend the game to anyone. you can control vast armies and it has a new 'build base anywhere' strategy, which as you can guess menas you can build your base anywhere on the map! Also the enemies are controlled by a new system (AI i think ) which means they think of proper strategies by themselves and won't simply keep attacking the same place over and over.
Its worth buying a new computer for!
__________________
Utślie'n aurė! Aiya Eldaliė ar Atanatįri, utślie'n aurė! Auta i lómė! Aurė entuluva!
I only have the first BFME and I love it. The Might: There is elves in Helms Deep in the first game but I don't know about the second. It sounds even better though so I'm definately going to get it. I love the thought of controlling even vaster armies.
Vaster! Massive armies. However if your going to get it make sure you have a fast processor especially if you want to control hundreds and even thousands of troops. My record is getting 3.500 goblins but it was running slow by then.
nah...I have better stuff to buy... like the da vinci code game though controlling 3500 goblins sounds interesting... too bad the game is like the movie...but I didn't really think it would be like the book...
Isn't trying to control 3,500 goblins or whatever a bit difficult. I find it hard enough with just a few hundred. If you split them up then you can never remembers who you've got doing what.
My computers pretty slow enough as it is. I don't know if would be able to cope with installing a game like BFME 2 on it. On second thoughts I think I'll save my money and just make do with the first game.
The second game is all about how you control units.
If you want to control large armies you have a extra featuer called 'Planning mode'. What you do is highlight your chosen number of batallions and then click them where you want to go but they won't move until you press 'Execute'. Then you go back to your army and do the same with different battalion but this time you send them to the other side of the enemy base. Next you do it a third time with different battalions heading straight for the base. When you have done what you need to do, you press 'Execute' and the whole army will move as one to there pin-pointed locations. So the Enemy has there base being attacked from three sidesat once!
This is just one example, using 'planning mode' there are many other things you can do like creating patrols. What this means is you can choose a battalion or more to patrol an area back and for or round in a circle without having to ever control them again. When the enemy comes close they will stop patrolling and attack. When the enemy is dead they will resume the patrol you set them to do.
It is a very good game, best army game in the industry.
__________________
Utślie'n aurė! Aiya Eldaliė ar Atanatįri, utślie'n aurė! Auta i lómė! Aurė entuluva!
The Might - you take the games and films for what they are. Don't keep comparing them to the books as they have had to be adjusted considerably from the 50 year old book. Its not like Harry-potter where the films are being created alongside the Books. Lotr was published 50 years ago so the films have had to been altered to appeal to modern audiences.
I hate people who keep criticising the film all the time. It would not have been dubbed 'Best film ever' if nobody had liked it.
why? tolkien made the world as HE WANTED no one, and I mean no one has the right to change Tolkien's opinion in any way... elves at Helm's deep??? saruman falling from Orthanc making everything commercial might be profitable but it is without honor
Well what do you think Tolkien would say if he were here now?
"Oh what the hell have they done to all my work?" OR...
"I never knew my myth would make such an international impact. The plot may be a bit off but the special effects are amazing! I never knew my works would come to this back in 1940..."
read the letters my friend I guess you didn't because if you would have you would see how TOLKIEN VERY ANGRILY CRITICISED the way his works were treated back then, also changing many things in the plot he would be impressed, I am sure but he would also ask what the **** are those elves doing there?
Indeed I would but in order for that to happen each film would need to be extended by an hour and a half or more and I could not sit in a cinema for 5 hours.
hehe...true...the films would have to be longer frankly as director I would also not have included stuff like the scouring of the shire but I would have never said that Saruman fell from Orthanc...or that (if I am right, I might be wrong though) Aragorn killed Mouth of sauron as he came with the tokens
Agreed there are mistakes, No more however than other films. But you are forgetting the Directors needs. He wants to make a Good film not just a replicar of a book. Therefore by making Saruman fall from Orthanc and Mouth of Saurons head being cut off, grabs the audiences attention. Pity they were only in the extended version.
I think The Might and mouthofsauron111, have gone of the subject of which this thread is for. Shouldn't you two have this discussion somewhere else? (just a suggestion. Don't hurt me)
I apologize if I made too many refferences to the film, but note I feel the same way about the games so this is not entirely off-topic. We discuss the games and I brought up the question why the games, just like the movies, don't respect the original storyline. The movies are only another example.
Thats fair enough then TM. I just thought the conversation was starting to get too much about the films. That's all.
Anyway, I agree with mouthofsauron111's argument. Of course most LotR fans would have wanted the films and games to follow the books and the way Tolkien saw it to the letter, but it just wouldn't be feesable for the director of the films or creator of the game. Anyway, probably most people who bought the games and watched the films hadn't read the books before hand so the differences between them and the books would really matter the the majority of the target audience.
ok...what gives you that idea??? could you tell me where in this whole topic I have ever said I didn't watch the movies??? I saw them, and also the extended edition twice
Oh so you have watched them? Well surely if you thought the First film was pretty rubbish and did not follow the book enough, you would not have bothered to watched the others?
)
