While the presentation and production values are close to the top of the genre, the game has some frustrating moments. 'Hero' units such as Treebeard or Sauron have their own set of special powers as they gain experience, giving the game's otherwise familiar trappings a swift kick in the greaves.

Each faction offers deliciously satisfying special techniques that can cause cataclysmic damage with a mere click of a button, from volleys of arrows raining down from the sky to an instantaneous appearance of eagles, Ents, or hobbits to wreak havoc on an enemy's plans. It's a game filled with emotion, as troops heroically sprint toward combat and raise their arms up in elation after a hard-fought battle. Goblins scamper across the terrain and scale walls like spiders, archers carefully pick off their prey from behind trees, and cave trolls heave boulders that send bodies flying. The animation makes it feel like Tolkien's world is living, cheering, and hissing on your desktop. The success of Battle for Middle-earth II lies not in its design, but its attention to detail. Yet its production values are so high, its exuberance for the source material so obvious, it might very well be as close to 'precious' as fans will likely see from Tolkien's works - at least until Middle-earth III. At first blush, Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II seems to continue this disappointing trend, offering few surprises with its interface or basic play mechanics. One reason is the lack of ingenuity, with a glut of games aspiring to do little more than deliver a Command & Conquer or an Age of Empires with different units and maps. Once one of the dominant genres on computers, real-time strategy games have slowly, gradually fallen out of favor with publishers and consumers alike.

Age of empires lord of the rings