Yin was right. Take a look at Rise of Nations

[Sirotnikov]

as an example of what a good group of developers can do.


They took a good genere, and made it better.

They managed to get great graphics, a great engine and all in a very short time.

But most importantly - they didn't hide behind it, like Firaxis did. In every interview Firaxis reminded people of thier beautiful graphics and big blobbed leader faces.

Meanwhile, RoN publishers said nothing about it's great graphics yet, and the graphics do appear to be great. They have a great game on it's own.

They have the most complex and interesting RTS engine yet. So much innovations. And everything appears to be great.

Tons of interesting ideas, from borders, to culture, to city health, to attrition and supply lines, to rise and fall of empires (using different unique units for every period).

They invented a whole new way of making resources and knowledge.

They have managed to get most things we wanted on the Civ 3 list, in a RTS game, and they solved most problems.

Furthermore, they are a new company with no previous products. Yet they don't seek easy revenue by pushing a game before it's ready.

Think about it. RoN is already playable for a long time. They implemented almost everything <u>including mutliplayer</u>.

And still they are not pushing onto us a beta version, like we received a beta of Civ III, but rather are going to perfect this until early 2003 .

That's a year!!

They have no money from previous games, yet they take this game serously.

Firaxis, a well known company with a better financial base, didn't. They are now busy finilizing a beta version of a hardly inspired game.

They took civ, added the resources and culture ideas, "streamlined" it for dummies, added tons of new graphics and shipped.

Even with the new ideas I feel I'm playing a dumbed down version of Civ.

Yet RoN will be a great improved version of AoE. Infact, it will be everything AoE promised to be (something between civilizatios and warcraft).

This is how you make games.

[General Ludd]

Firstly, you haven't played the game and it is no where near release, so don't talk about what he has done - because he has done nothing as of yet.


Secondly, it is just (yet another) AoE clone. And that "great engine" they where able to get in such a short time is no doubt the AoE engine.


That said, it looks like a better attempt then Empire Earth was.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Osweld
Firstly, you haven't played the game and it is no where near release, so don't talk about what he has done - because he has done nothing as of yet.

Clearly, you haven't seen all of the "MOO3 will be the greatest game of all time!" and "Let's all thank the MOO3 design team for making such a great game!" threads on the MOO3 forum. :p

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a clone. Waste of a game.

How you DON'T make games!

Now, Firaxis with SimGolf... there is a ****ing game!

[Apocalypse]

Imran, why do you keep calling it a clone? It may be in the same subgenre, but there are many significant differences. Just think about the things that Sirotnikov mentioned, plus the peaceful gameplay possibilities, use of combined arms, and ways to limited the effects of rushes.

[Kyle]

*blatently on-topic*


I'd say we should at least play the demo before condemning it as a "clone" or other somesuch.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I call it a clone because it is one. What are the new things? Resources don't deplete, borders, combined arms? *yawn* They should called it Empire Earth II or Age of Empires III and be done with it.

I don't need to play it to consider it a clone. Empire Earth was a close and so is this.

[Apocalypse]

We don't even need to wait for the demo. Just by reading the previews you can tell that RoN's gameplay will be nothing like AoE's. I'm not going to say the RoN is going to be the long awaited messiah for the RTS genre, but I assure you that people won't be complaining that it is just another clone when it is released.

Those new items are pretty major, and once again I must mention the peaceful gameplay possibilities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Apoc, it's a clone. It brings almost nothing new, just a few minor things which don't distinguish it from anything.

It just confirms that Brian isn't an innovater, but someone who can do things when he is told what to do (ie, Civ2).

[Sirotnikov]

Firstly, you haven't played the game and it is no where near release
Exactly.
The game is already playable for a long time, and it won't be released for a year. They have a year to improve it.

Firaxis didn't do that. What we had was a nice beta.

Secondly, it is just (yet another) AoE clone. And that "great engine" they where able to get in such a short time is no doubt the AoE engine.

They don't employ AoE people to my knowldge.

And finally AOE didn't allow for such elaborate things.

If you want to look for what the AOE team is doing, it's Age of Myths (or whatever it is called).

That said, it looks like a better attempt then Empire Earth was.
Exactly.

With several differences. One being it actually delivers.

Empire Earth is just AoE with more units and ages.

They didn't even revise the resources really. Just added iron.

Imran, it is a game. It takes a genere and improves it. A game doesn't have to be original.

Hey, AoK sure wasn't original, but it's a very good game. very fun.

AC was very good.

Civ III is not. It seems good... for several days.

But it's not, really.

I'm waiting for the final version (ie after final patch) to decide.

[Sirotnikov]

Imran, read the gamespy review. It gives so much more details.

[Ramo]

Am I correct in my presumption that RoN is something similar to Shogun (having a strategical engine and a tactical engine)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's just real time.. but with peaceful actions possible.

And I did read it, Siro.. B-O-R-I-N-G.

I'd rather play another 5 hours of SimGolf (which I shall be tonight :)).

[Apocalypse]

Brian has been innovative in the past. Even with Colonization, even though the stuff he did kinda sucked. SMAC was innovative, not significantly, but the innovations were good this time. Now with RoN, he is highly innovative and hopefully they will be good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This game is very clonish, Apoc... that is obvious.

You can also say all those RTS's weren't clones because they had 'innovations' :rolleyes:

[Apocalypse]

Most other RTSs just had one or two minor innovations if any. The same basic premise was present in every game though, fight your way to victory. Games like C&C and SC are dominated by preplaned tricks like rushing and don't required you to plan for any unforseen changes, unlike what proponents of the subgenre say. RoN brings true change.

[Sirotnikov]

Imran, so Civ III is a clone of Civ?

After all, it didn't innovate that much.

Civ III practically ruined the game. It streamlined it too much, and yet left alot of problems.

Most game functions don't even have buttons. I must remember the short-cut key. So much for streamlining.


RoN is very very innovating. Just as Civ was to the TBS era, I think.

True, it owes some of that to AoE and WarCraft. But still, it improves enough to call it a ground breaker.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, so Civ III is a clone of Civ?

Well duh! It's a sequel, hence a clone.

RoN is very very innovating. Just as Civ was to the TBS era, I think.

:lol: Sig material!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Games like C&C and SC are dominated by preplaned tricks like rushing and don't required you to plan for any unforseen changes, unlike what proponents of the subgenre say.

Really? Are you sure they don't require you to plan for the fact that a rush might fail? It happens more often than not when playing a good player.

[Apocalypse]

Most people have backup plans when rushes fail. Still doesn't require you to think on your feet.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by loinburger


Clearly, you haven't seen all of the "MOO3 will be the greatest game of all time!" and "Let's all thank the MOO3 design team for making such a great game!" threads on the MOO3 forum. :p

I hate you. ;)

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I call it a clone because it is one. What are the new things? Resources don't deplete, borders, combined arms? *yawn* They should called it Empire Earth II or Age of Empires III and be done with it.

I don't need to play it to consider it a clone. Empire Earth was a close and so is this.

I have to agree with Imran on this one. Since many of the ideas to make new original games are fading away, a game interface has a crucial part in a game experience.
And looking to the RoN screenshots, it's really like AoE, AoK or EE! :bored:

[Zoid]

Imran, isn´t everything a clone of something else when you really really get down to basics? One could argue that every computer game is a clone of Pong since what you really do is moving objetcts on the screen to reach a certain goal. What I mean is that everything builds on everything else, therefore the discussion of clones is more or less pointless.

Am I making any sense? (Disregard my twisted commie-view of the world :D )

[ColdFever]

Originally posted by Zealot
a game interface has a crucial part in a game experience.
And looking to the RoN screenshots, it's really like AoE, AoK or EE

An interface indeed is a crucial part, but a good game is like a good car: most of the quality is hidden below the surface. Just because two cars do look similar and have a similar cockpit they can be very different to drive.

But I agree in the form that I am looking forward to see some screenshots of the game options or the diplomatic handling so that we can get some hints what is "below the hood".

[Apocalypse]

Well, that interface is good. Would rather have a lesser interface just so that it would be different?

[Cookie Monster]

Despite what anyone says and no matter what features are promised with this game one thing still remains. Based on the current screenshots what I see here is nothing more than an AoE/AoK clone. I'm sorry but a few more features and subtle differences do not make a ground breaking new game. RTS is RTS. Europa Universalis is the only RTS a TRUE STRATEGY GAMER would dare touch. Give me my TBS game.

If you're a teenager than RTS is great for you but us old people don't want another clickfest.

Of course feel free to disagree with me. I will keep an open mind because you never know...........

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Despite what anyone says and no matter what features are promised with this game one thing still remains. Based on the current screenshots what I see here is nothing more than an AoE/AoK clone. I'm sorry but a few more features and subtle differences do not make a ground breaking new game. RTS is RTS. Europa Universalis is the only RTS a TRUE STRATEGY GAMER would dare touch. Give me my TBS game.

If you're a teenager than RTS is great for you but us old people don't want another clickfest.

Of course feel free to disagree with me. I will keep an open mind because you never know...........

Haupt. Dietrich: I agree with everything you say.

As a person gets older (wiser?) TBS games will always look more appealing. RTS will usually always appeal to the younger, more agile gamers.

I will say this for BR and Company: at least they are taking the time to really playtest and polish RoN. This is practically unheard of in this day and age. Microsoft is bankrolling this game, so it must have a lot of confidence in this company and the game.

Because of this, I will keep an open mind and have a look at the game/demo when it comes out.

Even so, the game will still be RTS; it will "rush" through the ages in about an hour; and a game will be playable in about an hour. I really don't expect a great deal of depth from a game like this.

It might still be fun and playable - but obviously it's geared for the younger players and for online play.

I'm just hoping that with the obvious talent in BHG that they will consider making some true strategy games in the future, once they establish themselves and have made some money.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Most people have backup plans when rushes fail. Still doesn't require you to think on your feet.

You haven't played that many good people, have you?

[Apocalypse]

Well, no. I do talk with many people who play them a great deal. You see, RTSs don't generally appeal to me, until now.

[FrostyBoy]

Grass is grass, plains are plains, trees are trees, water is water, of course it looks like a clone, if it wasn't, I'd be worried.

And how many angles of view can you use? Straight down? boring, hard to distinquish what's what. Horizontally? Yeah right. I'm sorry, but perspective wins.

Sorry negative people, but computers today don't exactly offer an unlimited supply of styles before it gets ridiculous.

I think RoN is fine so far, but the gameplay we will ALL have to wait and see, let no one judge by the cover and the text; not yet anyway.

[da_jaymz]

Why are you dissing RTS-genre?
Age of Empires series and Empire Earth are very cool games, in some way they reflect Civ series in real-time....
I think I've played Age of Kings more than any other game just because it had a nice counter-unit combat system and Empire Earth is even better in that way, its faster, bigger, stronger and its the best RTS ever made, and if you don't like something, you got a Scenario Editor and change it, like in Civ-series...

And yea, Blizzard games are more hype than anything, Starcraft is more like a "Quake from above"...

This game has a lot of potential, looks good and I hope it comes with a full scenario editor...

[FrostyBoy]

I didn't say RTS games were bad, I just pointed out its flaws; nothing is perfect.

I like RTS games too, but they get boring quickly.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by da_jaymz
And yea, Blizzard games are more hype than anything, Starcraft is more like a "Quake from above"...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[da_jaymz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Bah..its a matter of taste...game had nice single-player levels but multiplayer just simply sucked...rush, rush, rush and again rush with the same type of units all the time....try that "tactic" in Empire Earth or AoK you'll see what will happen...
Starcraft is overrated, there's loads of better games on the market...
Ignorance? :hmmm: We are talking about games man, not about achieving world peace or something...

[mactbone]

Guess you never tried a "use map settings" game.

I have played Madness, RPG-Like, Evolution, Defense, etc. games. Blizzard added triggers to their map editor, and that has made it the hit that it is for me. Although, there still is their ability to make a game with three totally different, almost perfectly balanced races. Something no other game had attempted, and no other game that I can think of has achieved.

[da_jaymz]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Guess you never tried a "use map settings" game.

I have played Madness, RPG-Like, Evolution, Defense, etc. games. Blizzard added triggers to their map editor, and that has made it the hit that it is for me.
I have no problems with the game, its a good game but its overrated....in some games like Total Anihilation and Empire Earth you can make your own "starcraft" with scenario editor...
Best RTS?? Not even close.

Although, there still is their ability to make a game with three totally different, almost perfectly balanced races. Something no other game had attempted, and no other game that I can think of has achieved
3 races but gameplay is the same, only opponent that is building different types of units is the AI....I borrowed my copy of AoK to my friend who is a huuuge Starcraft fan and he always complained on AoK that the game is forcing him to build different units because of the counter-unit system.
Is this a bad or a good thing?

[Apocalypse]

Different units are a good think. It makes it more realistic. It also helps to prevent rushes, because if some set of units is destroyed in a rush, you'll have to regroup or be totally decimated.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by da_jaymz

I have no problems with the game, its a good game but its overrated....in some games like Total Anihilation and Empire Earth you can make your own "starcraft" with scenario editor...
Best RTS?? Not even close.

3 races but gameplay is the same, only opponent that is building different types of units is the AI....I borrowed my copy of AoK to my friend who is a huuuge Starcraft fan and he always complained on AoK that the game is forcing him to build different units because of the counter-unit system.
Is this a bad or a good thing?

Sure Starcraft is less sofisticated than Aok, but is Aok more polished, balanced, fun, than Starcraft? and also Starcraft, has less economic click fest, (think Aok: boar, deer, sheep, berries, mines, trees, 120 villagers)

[da_jaymz]

Originally posted by thinkingamer


Sure Starcraft is less sofisticated than Aok, but is Aok more polished, balanced, fun, than Starcraft? and also Starcraft, has less economic click fest, (think Aok: boar, deer, sheep, berries, mines, trees, 120 villagers)
I said its a matter of taste and it depends on your style of play...boar, deer, sheep and berries disappears in first 15 minutes of the game, those are just there to get you started, in last AoK:TC patch you can queue up to 40 farms so you're left dealing with 3 resources and you don't have to play with 200 pop and btw 40-50 villies is enough for a 200 pop game...
I'm not saying Starcraft is pure crap, its good but its not THAT good.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by da_jaymz

I said its a matter of taste and it depends on your style of play...boar, deer, sheep and berries disappears in first 15 minutes of the game, those are just there to get you started, in last AoK:TC patch you can queue up to 40 farms so you're left dealing with 3 resources and you don't have to play with 200 pop and btw 40-50 villies is enough for a 200 pop game...
I'm not saying Starcraft is pure crap, its good but its not THAT good.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion, but in strategy wise, starcraft is much less required to keep track of ur resorces (which it can interrupt the "real focus strategy") such as boar killing efficiency, or even controlling bunch of unit producing buildings such as barracks, stable (even keeping track of it!) in the late game.

And by the way Starcraft takes about only 1/2 time than an Aok game (u know time is gold) and that makes this game a bit more attractive (one of the reasons civ3 failed is its looooooooong game.)

The only thing i really liked about Aok is its cool civs (and its personalty, history), but thats about it.

And Aok is not a pure crap, but it is not as good as Starcraft (just compare the # of people playing SC in battlenet with # of people playing Aok in Zone)

[Capt Dizle]

Civ3 failed because its a long game? I have criticized Civ3 upside, downside, and side to side and never thought of that for a second.

Of course there is the wait between turns....

I generally hate RTS and I can tell you that if a game of Rise of Nations can be completed in less than 40 hours of play I don't want to touch it.

Not with a long stick from a speeding train.

[Apocalypse]

Many great games provide for the possibilty of short games....
Civ2, EU, Baldur's Gate, etc
It all depends on how you play.

[GePap]

I agree with Siro (and the earth shakes, hell freezes over, and Armageddon starts:eek: ) that RoN looks sufficently different from most RTS to be a great game: Now, I am a fan of various RTS games. and they are not all clones- Cossakcs, for example, is in no way a clone of AoE. it plays significantly differently, the types of units and the ways they interact, the economic model, how defense works, the differences between states- all of these thigs were significantly different in Cossacks than in AoE (which I also enjoyed) , so the notion that all RTS games are the same is false just as false as anyone who states that SMAC, MOO2, and civ3 are all clones of civ because its mostly about building large cities (or colonies) and then crancking out lots of unist to rush your opponent (and since most Civ playes seek to win by war, in a way, this is all they do).

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Civ3 failed because its a long game? I have criticized Civ3 upside, downside, and side to side and never thought of that for a second.

Of course there is the wait between turns....


Sorry, coz i did not specify: Civ3 failed as a multiplayer game, because its long game.

But overall it is less apealling because it takes 24 hours to finish.......... (You could play 5 couter-strike/team fortress MP , 2 heroes of M&M MP, and 3 Aok MP game in 24 hours of a single player civ3 game............see my point?)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by thinkingamer
Sorry, coz i did not specify: Civ3 failed as a multiplayer game, because its long game.

Civ3 fails as a multiplayer game because it doesn't ship with the possibility to be played as one unless something really signigigant happened after I uninstalled the coaster from my hard drive.

[AncientPharaoh]

Just thinking...but isn't SimGolf just a clone of other Sim things...and of course the Tycoon whatever. They're all basically the same, different various things your building, like a golf course or a roller coaster park, but still.


Anyway, the entire way at which BHG is going at RoN is different than AoK. They're talking about actually entire nations, with cities...not just one huge old city or whatever which was the basics behind AoK.

[XarXo]

It's amaizing what the people can write by seeing only some SCREENS.

Was Call to Power I/II a great game?

[St Leo]

<i>Different units are a good think. It makes it more realistic.</i>

Right...
In a realistic game USA would have tanks, Britain would have giant horse cabs, Germany would have AI-enhanced beer barrels, and Russia would have cyborg bears. Face it, in a realistic game, everyone would have equivalent units with slightly different stats.

[Kataphraktoi]

I said its a matter of taste and it depends on your style of play...boar, deer, sheep and berries disappears in first 15 minutes of the game, those are just there to get you started, in last AoK:TC patch you can queue up to 40 farms so you're left dealing with 3 resources and you don't have to play with 200 pop and btw 40-50 villies is enough for a 200 pop game...
I'm not saying Starcraft is pure crap, its good but its not THAT good

sorry,but if your playing a half decent player in AoK you cannot do a 200 pop game with 50 villiagers. anything less then 100 and you lose...unless your talking about hun skirm\spear in fuedal...

[Boris Godunov]

*YAWN* yet another RTS.

RTS is a genre that is very limited, and no matter how you slice it, they all end up being pretty much the same (EU is the rare exception, and the RTS part of it is actually a weakness, not an asset).

I heard everyone crowing about how AoE was so revolutionary. It was the same things as WC and C&C, just slightly expanded and with a historical context. Then everyone said EE was so much better, so in-depth, blah blah blah. No, it was just boring and added 100 jillion units and buildings. Other than that, it was mindless.

In the end, RTS will just boil down to building a big army and sending it around to decimate everything in its path until you win.

God save us from RTS games!

[Kataphraktoi]

strange how RTS is so much more popular than TBS if its so bad...maybe you just cant think quickly...and need 10 minutes to plan your moves :lol:

[Steve Clark]

RTS is so much more popular because of all of those kids growing up playing the arcadish console games. The new screenshots confirm that Imran was right, it looks exactly like AoE where you have to constantly engage in a click-fest to get hordes of characters engaging each other. That's not gaming, that's just superficial action-oriented eye-candy. I'm willing to take bets that the gameplay will be very similar to AoE and EE because of the limitations of combat-centric RTS designs.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
strange how RTS is so much more popular than TBS if its so bad...maybe you just cant think quickly...and need 10 minutes to plan your moves :lol:

Popularity is not indicative of quality, especially in this day and age. Look at what the highest grossing film of all time is.

Public sentiment is never a good guage of what is really good.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Popularity is not indicative of quality, especially in this day and age. Look at what the highest grossing film of all time is.

Public sentiment is never a good guage of what is really good.

Now we are treading the dangerous regions of "personal taste"... ;)

I personally don't like RTS. I tried to play AoE once, and it bored me to death. Click, click, click... When I tried to stop and think about what I was doing, I had to click and click and click again...

But I think that we cannot judge RoN yet; the game will be released only next year! So far, we have some indications that it will try to do things differently; the question is: will it be different enough? We'll have to wait and see.

Sure, Brian Reynolds and his team are aiming the younger audiences (the entire scope of human History in 1 hour?!) but it seems that the game will be customizable enough to allow for different gaming styles. As I said, wait and see.