Screenshots & trailers
Review sentiment over time
Weekly positive-review rate (green) and review volume (bars). Dashed lines mark significant patches; the amber line is the start of the current scoring window. Hover the dots to see what drove a dip or a jump.
How this score was computed
The VGC Score is a weighted blend on a press-comparable 0-100 quality scale. Steam approval rates are first calibrated (95% positive on Steam ≈ 89.5 quality, since Steam approval skews high). Press and tracked creator reviews each count ~2x a player review and share one cap against player evidence (creator buy/skip calls pool into an approval rate, calibrated like Steam approval); all-time sentiment is capped and halved (it's context, not verdict); reviews of the current build carry the most weight when a fresh patch anchors the window; and a 'typical game' prior keeps small samples from pegging the scale. Because press reviews and Metacritic user aggregates describe the launch build, their weight decays as the game ages (3-year half-life after a 1-year grace). That's how a game that launched rough can outgrow its old reception once updates win players over. Reviews under 2h playtime (the refund window), non-Steam activations, and free copies are downweighted.
| Component | Positive | Quality (0-100) | Weight (pseudo-reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Press reviews (OpenCritic) | – | 37 | 118 |
| Creator reviews (3 tracked) | – | 44 | 4 |
| All-time Steam reviews | 40% | 45 | 762 |
| Metacritic user ratings | – | – | 0 |
| Post-patch Steam reviews (trust-weighted) | 41% | 46 | 5 |
| Calibration prior (typical game) | – | 72 | 50 |
Scoring window: last 30 days (no significant patch detected) · 14 reviews sampled · 5 total reviews in window · weighted 2.9 up / 4.1 down · computed 1h ago · full methodology →
Press & Creators reviews (104)
Individual verdicts from outlets we track: scored reviews first, most trusted outlets first among them. The small badge is each outlet's trust score: how well its scoring history aligns with players.
- 25
“Daedalic had an opportunity to prove the cynics wrong when so many people wondered what the hell the point of a Gollum game would even be. Instead, they handled this with such utter clumsiness they likely ensured a game like it will never happen again.”
read full review ↗ - 40
“Unless you’re a die-hard LOTR fan or a lover of bad games, this can’t be recommended. The sound design and motion capture work are both excellent but the game’s negatives far outweigh its positives. One day, we will get a game that rules over all LOTR games. But for now, we have a game, that, to misquote Gandalf, DOES NOT PASS!!”
read full review ↗ - 50
“Even though we are big Lord of the Rings fans, and we were afraid to start the game based on the preliminary negative feedback, it was a pleasant surprise. We enjoyed the story so much that I hope to play Gollum's Adventures again. If only to explore the different decisions and endings.”
read full review ↗ - 20
“Gollum might be the worst release of 2023 so far. Why Daedalic agreed to do this and didn't cancel it is a mystery.”
read full review ↗ - 40
“Gollum just feels so shockingly old hat, a disheartening collection of mechanics that, at best, bring to mind one of the lesser pre-2013 Tomb Raider games and, at worst, suggest leftovers from the N64 bargain bin. Every success involves wrestling the loose controls, unhelpful camera, and iffy collision detection into submission against an ever-increasing wave of bugs and glitches, only some of which have been fixed by the game’s Day One patch.”
read full review ↗ - 35
“The Lord of the Rings: Gollum definitely shouldn't have seen the light of day in this form, especially at the suggested retail price. Honestly, even if the game cost a tenth of that, it would still be too much. Ugly graphics, clunky controls, and a stupid camera. Aside from the story and the music, I can only recall negative experiences with this game, and I’m really sorry about that. Gollum truly deserved something a little better.”
read full review ↗ - 55
“The Lord of the Rings: Gollum has the features of a solid „middle of the road” game. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. The game is tiring, and I really wish this Gollum had a chance to return, with all his dialog lines, sarcasm, and the Smeagol persona, in a different, much better game.”
read full review ↗ - 40
“Lord of the Rings: Gollum struggles under its own weight from the word go. Any benefit from a grimmer, more unvarnished look at the characters of Middle-earth from an atypical perspective is immediately undercut by a bevy of technical issues, clunky controls, unexciting game design, and stilted presentation at constant odds with the player.”
read full review ↗ - 10
- 15
“It should be removed from physical & digital shelves until it can be finished without resorting to banging your skull against sheetrock.”
read full review ↗ - 40
- 30
“Although I do think the premise for the game was good, The Lord of the Rings: Gollum is a slog to get through. The boring missions, bland environments, flat gameplay, poor graphics and average story combine to make this, at best, a completely mediocre experience. But once you take the multiple issues into consideration and the fact that Daedalic wanted £60 for it, The Lord of the Rings: Gollum becomes like its namesake: a pitiful wretch corrupted by the allure of the One Ring.”
read full review ↗
The Jimquisition
TheReviewGeek
INDIANTVCZ
3DNews
Slant Magazine
Gaming Professors
GRYOnline.pl
Gamer Escape
The Angry Joe Show
VGChartz
Arabhardware 
Wolf's Gaming Blog…and 92 more tracked reviews.
Patch history
- The Lord of the Rings: Gollum: Patch Notes 2.2Jul 27, 2023significant · resets scoring window