User Reviews

The books the lord of the rings were awesome, and this game does them some credit, depending on what versoin you have, the cd rom version has scenes from the cartoon movie, while the floppy disk version just has little scenes of its own. The game strays from the books, but it is still very fun

Being a huge fan of Tolkien's works, I can safely say that most fans will be quite content with this game. Although a little buggy, it's about as good as any 1990 game can be. The game does tend to drift away from the original story in many parts, but I guess that's necessary if it's to be interactive at all, I mean, what fun would it be if it were exactly the same as the book?

It was a good film, good drawn, (if it was drawn that is!). It felt like the movie was filmed and then drawn upon, with colors and so on. I couldn´t possibly imagine Gandalf better drawn. Too bad that the cartoon couldn´t be finished and that the economical cost expired the budget limit, that´s what I´ve heard. When you saw the movie you where not present in the real world, it was easy to jump in. It´s too bad that so much was neglected from the book, like Bombabill (That´s what he´s called in Sweden).

This game is an RPG/Adventure game based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy (more specifically, The Fellowship of the Ring), and was originally published by Interplay in 1990.

After having played this game for about one hour, I wiped it off my hard disk. I was disappointed with the game to say the least, for several reasons:

A. - The gameplay is so utterly monotonous and boring, and does not properly capture the excitement, depth or action of Tolkien's universe. You're constantly scratching your head wondering what to do next and are often lost in the game (and exploration isn't terribly fun, because the world isn't very interesting). The interface just plain sucks. There is little of the character development from Tolkien's books. Most of the NPCs are faceless entities. Many locations in the game have a lack of distinction and look very cookie cutter. The pacing is off. The battle is tedious. Yes, I know the game came out in 1990, but it wasn't brilliant at the time, and it most certainly isn't now. Ultima suffered from the same problems. However this game sucks in other areas...

B. - Bugs galore. This game is very buggy. All sorts of stupid little bugs abound. This game isn't very well programmed, and this is especially apparent on a modern PC.

C. - The graphics are baaad. Even for a game that came out in 1990, the graphics could've been better. I think this is due to the fact the game was originally programmed for the Commodore 64 computer. It supports 256 colours, so there's no excuse for the graphics looking as blah and unspectacular as they do. Even Ultima VI looks better than this. The graphics are top down - I personally would have liked an isometric perspective, but this isn't really a fault.

So there you have it - this game isn't very good, especially since its supposed to be based off the Tolkien universe. If you want to see an example of a good RPG/Adventure game this era, see Sega's Phantasy Star instead.

there was no story, it makes me angry that anyone could even bother with this. peter jackson has proved his direness. i slept for 30 minutes in this film and missed nothing because there was nothing, is nothing in this film. the only other film i have slept in was 'Arthur 2 love on the rocks' i need say no more? i will, grasping for Star Wars. why did no one save gandolf ? there was no threat to him; maybe because O-be-one died about then. god i hate it.

The above title says it all. Unless you're a special effects goober, or one who has a real jones for wizards, and elves, I'd run for the hills (and I don't mean Mount Doom). It's sad, to be so striking visually, yet to have a core of thundering mediocrity.