Rise on Nations?

[MiniKiller]

I have the demo, havent played it yet though.

[rasoforos]

hehehe , i guess its good but....93% ?

[MiniKiller]

Rise of Nations, not on, lol yup 93%, PC Gamer doesnt usually go that high easily.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Disappointed.

build plenty if units, fight with no tactic, morale, fatigue, whatever; just sheer number and power.

That's all.

I got only 2 games on my HD now; VI and EU2

Louis the Simurgh,

[A Nerd]

I think it is alot of fun. Great graphics, large tech tree, somewhat different in approach to victory and a different campaign mode...but like any other rts it gets repetative after awhile.

[FesterShinetop]

Well, I only played the demo and I think 93 is a bit overrated. Judging by the demo I would give it around 78 and I don't think the final version would be that much better...?

[Balamir]

An upgraded version of AOE, which I never did like for its lack of strategy. Build your units build cities build more units more cities and search ages at library thats it. It sucks that every age has a lifetime of 10 minutes, 5 if you are quick. Build the most units, is what the game is about. My word is dont buy it unless you like what I said. The graphs are fairly good, tech tree's okay but.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif What the game deserves is not 93- its about 70-60

[MalibuMan]

Quote[/b] (MiniKiller @ June 24 2003,15:07)]Rise of Nations, not on, lol yup 93%, PC Gamer doesnt usually go that high easily.
I find it depends a lot on the reviewer, and the game. Sometimes it seems like games which take a week or two to reveal their lack of long-term depth get unfairly good reviews. A good example is Freelancer - they gave it 90-something but I found it became deadly boring after you complete the storyline as all its supposed depth is actually superficial.

They are generally a good yardstick though, better I think than most magazines.

[Cobra]

Thats just it, more units and rushing, DON'T WORK. It's no where near the depth of a Total War, but, I hate rushing and all that crap, but I never experienced any in Rise of Nations.

If you want my officialish opinion check out my reviewreview (http://www.worldwidegamenet.com/PC/Strategy/RiseofNations/index.htm). A few points over rated, but thats how it falls with the grading system used, but definately gets right around there. Seriously though, its not just an AoE clone, or a 10-20 minute game, the real time games usually are about an hour or more long, and the campaign has a map similar to TW, except bigger provinces. I enjoyed that game, and thats not something I say about most games of it's style, AoM, C&C, and all that whatnot.

[Longasc]

Well, it is the Age of Empires / Age of Mythology Concept warmed up. Do not understand all the fuss about it.

Empire Earth was somewhat more creative I think in evolving the game in Technology in a Civilization-style.

The Risk-inspired strategic map is rather poor, little possibilities and not much to do there.

So it is a good RTS, but I guess there are so many good RTS games so I do not know what is so especially good with that game. The graphics are not the reason for sure, but I do not see a reason for enthusiasm in gameplay either.

[rasoforos]

is it the reviewer or the 'sponsorship' that a good rating brings?

[TheRookiee]

Rise of Nations is one of the better RTS games out there. It is a combination of Empire Earth and Civilization.

You can advance from the classical age to the information age... From spears and horses to tanks, jets, ICBMs. There is a new concept of cities, which once built are never destroyed and become strategic points of conflict. The establishment of national borders is a new concept as well which gives you more of that empire fealing.

MTW is not an RTS but a TBS, so they are quite different kinds of games.

As far as strategy is concerned, there is more strategy in this game than many other RTS games. On the surface the graphics don't look all that impressive, but if you take the time to zoom in to watch all the 3d units, you'll see some very creative work. You have the guys loading the cannons before they fire, pulling the cannons with ropes and such when moving, you have the commandos smoking a joint when not being used etc...

The amount of features in the game is amazing. Those people who talk about ages flying by too quickly as a downside to the game don't know what they are talking about. Sounds like biased comments posted in this thread because you can greatly increase the research times and costs, so you have to spend more time in each age.

Sure you can say Just build more units than the other guy, and you'll win, but you can say the same thing about MTW. However, if you are outnumbered, but use your units smarter, you can still win in RON just like in MTW.

If you liked Empire Earth, and you liked Civilization then you'll like Rise of Nations. If you prefer the turn based games where each side takes turns moving instead of all the action happening at once RON may not be for you, but you can pause the game, issue out all the commands you want, survey the map, then resume the game, so you could make it into kind of a TBS if you wanted.

I think the only warning about the game I might give is that the game has some pretty stiff hardware requirements if you plan on playing large multiplayer games or want to max out the display settings. You'll definitely want a very nice graphics card as those GeForce MX cards just don't cut it.

[theadept]

RoN is brill

[Cobra]

Quote[/b] ]is it the reviewer or the 'sponsorship' that a good rating brings?

Considering I have no sponsorship, I call em like I see em.

I have a GForce 2 MX, and I can run it at optimum settings pretty well, the framerate may drop sometimes, but by putting it to 16 bit, there is none, and if any, next to 0 visual difference, but the framerate goes up to a much better level.

TheRookiee said it pretty well. RoN seems like it may be an AoE clone, but with borders, and the cities alone, it differs greatly, and the rush just simply won't work straight up. Unlike most normal RTS out there, RoN does give my brain some play time, and not just my clicking finger, another great part is the economy does not suck up all your time, and more rime can be put into your military and other things besides just fiddling with farms the whole game.

[Balamir]

RoN really becomes annoying because everytime you are zoomed in to the invade some city, you need to build the whole thing over-and-over-and-over again. 1 time is okay, 2 times is okay 3 times is okay, even 4 times but BAHH' this should have an end Duh my capital is rome, I invade its neighbour, and the city of Rome which is shown as 8 city strenght point on the risk map, is nothing but a little dwellment with 2 farmers and a library. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Come on lets be real, none of you can find that impressing.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I've had Rise of Nations since it came out and it is quite a nice game.
However, what it lacks (and for example M:TW does have) is replayability. Sure, it is fun to play a game; but it isn't that fun that it'll keep me from playing another game. This means that I haven't played it for more than a week, while it has been out for little more than a month...

[Emp. Conralius]

I think RoN is a great game. You can go ahead and say that it lacks strategy, this is true, it's a quick-paced RTS. But comparing it to pretty much any TW game, as far as strategy goes, is unfair. I have he game, and I've noticed many strategic elements of the game:

1. City placement (minerals, mountains).
2. National Borders
3. Artillery and machine gun units When being rushed, you should position these with [/I]strategy[I] in mind.
4. Flanking is a HUGE part of the game.

...just to name a few

When building new cities, you dont nesecarily have to build the same structures from the last city, it's all up to youThe game also has superb graphics (which really shine in the Gunpowder, Enligtenment, Industrial, Modern and Intelligence ages). Th game boasts 8 ages, btw. It isn't a perfct game, though. If you play it for too long, it'll get kinda dull. But the first few months (or weeks) will have you walking on air If yur a fan of history or just lookingfor a great RTS, this game is what your looking for. The pick-up-and-play element of his game really sets it apart.

Like I said before, RoN is a fast paced RTS. But it stands apart from the rest because of excelent graphics, variety, and many innovations never before tried in the RTS genre. And, like I said before, on a tactical POV, you cant really compare. I believe 93% is a fair review for what the game brings to the table. Gamespot gave it an identical 9.3. And you really can't review a game based on the demo. Try the rea deal before you judge the game; it's a very, very good game



P.S Dont judge this game based on the demo

[Mechstra]

I agree with Derfel, RoN lacks replayability. Don't get me wrong, I think that the game mechanics are great fun, and some elements are sheer genius, but while the script editor is powerful, the actual terrain tool for the editor is rubbish, making it a chore to modify maps (due to a bug that cause coastlines to retreat every time the map is edited).

Edit: I forgot to mention my favourite part of the game - the incredibly detailed graphics. It's a joy to just watch your troops fidgeting, or take a look at the scholars arguing in the university. And the multiple death animations for units are great. The dreadnought, in particular, shines as an amazing death-animation.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Yes, the detail to animations is impressive Haven't seen anything like it in other strategy games.
The other game mechanics are great as well: city capturing, borders, etc. However, it just doesn't seem to click; otherwise I would've replayed it more often. The strategy part of RoN is also greater than that of standard RTSes (like AoK) where you just click attack. In RoN, at least actions like flanking have some effect.

[TheRookiee]

One other thing that BHG has done a superb job with is the AI in RON. On moderate level, the AI does not cheat, in fact it takes a slight penalty in resource gathering yet does an excellent job in providing a good challenge. There are quite a few posts from people complaining how moderate is too hard of a level. On the tough level, the AI pulls out all the stops and plays its very best but still doesn't cheat. On tougher and toughest the AI gets resource cheats.

I think RON is one of the best AI I have seen.

[Cobra]

It's definately the best AI I've ever seen in an RTS.

RoN is fast paced compared to M:TW perhaps, but compared to games its style, its a lot slower of a pace, and with time controls, can be made faster or slower.

[SirGrotius]

I appreciate all the attention to detail, not in the graphics, but in the game itself. For instance, you don't just build bigger and bigger armies to win, in fact, every unit you create of the same type becomes more expensive each time you create it. Furthermore, there is a commerce cap which limits your intake of resources respective to your technological level (which isn't even close to excessive until the very last commerce technology upgrade). I also like the wonder benefits which adds some import to the otherwise anti-climatic function of wonders in aoeII.