Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor vs STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is an action-RPG open-world game from Feral Interactive (2014) while STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) is an FPS strategy game from Pandemic Studios (2009).
Quick answer: Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor has the higher Metacritic, 84 to 78.
What each one is
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is filed under Action-RPG and Open-World. In contrast, STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) under FPS and Strategy.
Fight through Mordor and uncover the truth of the spirit that compels you, discover the origins of the Rings of Power, build your legend and ultimately confront the evil of Sauron in this new chronicle of Middle-earth.
Join the rise of Darth Vader’s elite 501st Legion of Stormtroopers as you fight through an all new story-based saga where every action you take impacts the battlefront and, ultimately, the fate of the Star Wars galaxy.
Story, characters and reception
Plot
Setting Shadow of Mordor is based on Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium and Peter Jackson's movie franchise. The game takes place in the 60-year gap between the events of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings . The family of Talion (voiced and motion captured by Troy Baker ), a ranger of Gondor responsible for guarding the Black Gate of Mordor, is killed by the armies of Sauron, but Talion is revived with "wraith-like abilities" and heads into… (Wikipedia)
Reception
Critical reception Reception Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor received "generally favorable" reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic . The Nemesis system was praised by critics. According to Lucas Sullivan of GamesRadar , the system elevated Shadow of Mordor to excellence by making its villains memorable and adding personality to its protagonist. (Wikipedia)
No Wikipedia detail on file.
At a glance
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor | STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) | |
|---|---|---|
| GamingPickz Score | 8.1/10 | 8.1/10 |
| Steam rating | Very Positive (93%, 96,948) | Overwhelmingly Positive (95%, 54,262) |
| Critic aggregate | 84/100 | 78/100 |
| Price | $3.99 | $9.99 |
| Install size | 44 GB | — |
| Steam Deck | verified | playable |
| Released | 2014 | 2009 |
| Developer | Feral Interactive | Pandemic Studios |
Prices and Steam ratings are read live and move over time.
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor vs STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005), point by point
Each facet side by side. A round is marked won only where a figure settles it; feel and "which is better" carry no mark, because no number we hold decides them.
Genre and premise
Middle-earth: Shadow of MordorAction-RPG open-world gameSTAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)FPS strategy gameWhat each is filed as. Each game describes itself in full above; we do not judge a premise.
How it plays
Middle-earth: Shadow of MordorOpen World, Action, FantasySTAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)Action, Shooter, ClassicThe tags players apply most, in order of votes. A read on feel, not a verdict.
Reception
Middle-earth: Shadow of MordorScore 8.1 · 93% on Steam · 84 criticSTAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)Score 8.1 · 95% on Steam · 78 criticThe GamingPickz Score is a composite of player sentiment, critics and popularity, computed the same way for every game.
Content and scale
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor96,948 reviews · 16 add-ons · 44 GBSTAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)54,262 reviewsReach and footprint, not quality: more reviews or a bigger install is not a better game.
Price
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor ✓$3.99STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)$9.99Read live from Steam and subject to change.
On a Steam Deck
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor ✓VerifiedSTAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)PlayableValve's own Deck compatibility rating.
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor takes 2 of the marked rounds to 0. That is only what a number can decide, not which you will enjoy more.
The two on the grid
Compare the whole catalogueMiddle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) on the axes the GamingPickz Score is built from, on the full 0 to 100 scale so each dot is its real position. Change either axis to compare them on any measure.
2 games have both
Players. The share of Steam reviews marked positive, pulled toward the catalogue average in proportion to how few reviews stand behind it. A game with 200 reviews moves a long way toward the average; one with 200,000 barely moves at all. Without this a title sitting at 100 percent on nine reviews outranks Half-Life 2 at 98 percent on 278,000.
Popularity. A blend of two things that are not the same. Audience is how many people wrote a Steam review, which is a floor on how many played it. Reach is how many language editions of Wikipedia document the game, which is cultural footprint rather than sales. A game can score high on one and low on the other: a huge free-to-play title has audience without reach, and a landmark console exclusive has reach without a Steam audience at all. Where both exist they are averaged; where only one does, that one carries it.
- PC
- Xbox
Every point links to that game's entry. The value map and the reception map are fixed views of the same data.
How positions are decided
No paid placement, no favouritism, live third-party data
- Placed by the published method, not by us. Every coordinate is computed from the axis definitions and weights printed on this site. Nobody moves a point. See the axes.
- Nothing here is paid for. No sponsored placements, no promoted slots, no arrangement of any kind affects a position. If that ever changes it will be labelled and sit outside the ranking.
- No favouritism, including our own. The 16 games we have written full reviews of are scored by exactly the same formula as the other 1,510, from the same third-party inputs, and they land where it puts them. Our own opinion of a game does not enter its coordinates.
- A position is not an endorsement. It says how a game was received and what it costs, not that we recommend it. Where we do recommend something, it carries a written review with a name on it.
- Fetched from live third-party data. Player sentiment from Steam, critic aggregates as published on store pages, prices checked hourly, attention from Wikipedia. Each figure carries its source and the date it was read, and we do not adjust any of them.
Which to pick, by what you want
- The cheaper right now: Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor ($3.99)
- Better on a Steam Deck: Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor (verified)
What they have in common
Both are tagged by Steam players with:
ActionAdventureThird PersonSingleplayer
Where they differ
Open WorldFantasyStealthRPGAction RPGAssassin
MultiplayerShooterClassicThird-Person ShooterSci-fiSpace
Tags players apply to one game and not the other.
Difficulty and who each is for
By the tags players apply, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is middle-of-the-road on difficulty. STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) is middle-of-the-road on difficulty.
System requirements, side by side
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor | STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum GPU | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 | 64MB 3d Graphics card with Vertex Shader and Pixel Shader (VS/PS) Capability |
| Minimum CPU | Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz | Intel Pentium 4 1.5 GHz |
| Minimum RAM | 3 GB | 0.3 GB |
| Install size | 44 GB | — |
Can your PC run them? Check each against your own kit: Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor · STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005).
Accessibility features
Steam store pages declare 1 accessibility feature for Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and 0 for STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005). A declaration is a floor, not a review.
If you like one, also try
Common questions
How different are Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) in scope?
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor has drawn 96,948 Steam reviews, ships 16 add-ons and installs in 44 GB. STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) has drawn 54,262 Steam reviews.
Is Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor or STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005) better?
By the GamingPickz Score, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor rates higher (8.1 to 8.1). That is a composite of player sentiment, the critic aggregate and popularity, not our taste. "Better" also depends on price, length and platform, which the table above lays out.
Which is cheaper, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor or STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)?
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is cheaper right now at $3.99, against $9.99. Prices move, so this is read live from Steam and can change.
Should I get Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor or STAR WARS Battlefront II (Classic, 2005)?
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor has the higher Metacritic, 84 to 78. It also depends on what you want: the "which to pick" section above calls out which is cheaper, lighter on storage, better on a Steam Deck and the safer bet by weight of reviews.
Do you rank one above the other for a fee?
No. Neither game, nor anyone else, pays for placement or a verdict here. The order and every figure come out of the same public data the rest of the site uses.
Related comparisons
How we compare, and what we will not do
The GamingPickz Score is a composite of player sentiment (adjusted for sample size), the critic aggregate and popularity, computed by the same code every ranked list on this site uses. The Steam rating label is Valve's own, reconstructed from the positive percentage and review count. Prices are read live. We do not write an opinion of which game is "better": we report the numbers and say which wins each measurable question above.