First RON review

[Alex]

Well, albeit a bit early, it is labeled as a review. It was published by Gameplay, written by Smailio, and is dated from Apr 23.

Link: http://news.gameplay.co.uk/news/1051090177

Some excerpts:

RON blends some of the best aspects from almost all RTS games that have gone before, and manages to create a single game that doesn’t focus on any single gimmick, but borrows many of the smaller ideas that have made the above titles so good.

Its almost like Microsoft has literally created a Frankenstein (and I wouldn’t put it past them) made purely from parts of other games. Only this is no monster, it is truly a superb example of how to make an excellent strategy game that has tremendous scope, but never becomes vague or uninspiring.

Rise of Nations I [sic] simply superb. There is depth here than any similar game I have ever played. The graphics and sound are superb, the gameplay is fresh, inspiring and rewarding and RON features a lasting challenge that oozes replay value

Final score: 9/10.

[HuangShang]

9 out of 10 is a very nice score , but it might have been better if they released it earlier and just patched it

[SpencerH]

Obviously you're joking.

[HuangShang]

im not talking about the score being better, i mean that it would have been better for us if they have earlier release and patch the balance/system issues later like C&C Generals

[One_Dead_Villy]

no...it would be worse.....its better they delayed it rather then have problems in the game...1st impressions do matter. especially since this is the first game BHG has produced.

[Alex]

I thoroughly agree with you, ODV.

First impressions do matter, especially in a genre so saturated with lots of games.

[WarpStorm]

Diplomacy with other nations is kept to a minimum which keeps the emphasis on the real time battles, as opposed to the sometimes mind numbing diplomacy of the Civ games.

This scares me though. I was hoping for more. Like the 'mind numbing diplomacy' from Brian Reynolds' last game, SMAC.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by HuangShang
im not talking about the score being better, i mean that it would have been better for us if they have earlier release and patch the balance/system issues later like C&C Generals

I guess you havent been around for the various CIV3 debacles (or maybe it doesnt bother you). As it says in my sig, I paid my money I want a finished game. I'm not a Beta tester.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by WarpStorm

This scares me though. I was hoping for more. Like the 'mind numbing diplomacy' from Brian Reynolds' last game, SMAC.

It looks to me like RON can be thought of as a more complex version of the Age of Empire type games, which is fine by me (although I'm hoping for more in the future).

[HuangShang]

its too bad that all the hype about RoN died already, i might even forget to buy when it just comes out

this is BHG's first game???

[flash9286]

i would rather have the game with bugs and wait for a patch. Rather than wait for 1 month for the whole game

[One_Dead_Villy]

as opposed to the 3 years of development already? Revealed live first time around a year ago at E3. whats one month.

[HuangShang]

the earlier the better, u saw how popular Generals was, cus all the games that its suppose to face up against arent even out yet

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by HuangShang this is BHG's first game???

Yes, as BHG. These are verterans in the TBS game arena, though. They are directly responsible for Colonization, Civ2, SMAC, and half of Civ3. They also worked some on Gettysburg.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


...and half of Civ3.

Heh.. the better half.

Sorry! I can't help a little Civ3 bash now and again.


I can't wait to play the final game. The beta really got me excited.