Gamespot gives Rise of Legends a 7.6

[Dr Fear]

The review mentions the weak story several times. I don't think the storyline in the campaign is that important in a real-time strategy game, but maybe that's just cultural bias. Also, it claims that "Play is almost identical in character to [Rise of Nations]" It is?

[DanielElliot]

The story isn't so much weak as underdeveloped. It just doesn't bother to adequately foreshadow events or develop characters. What actually happens in the course of the campaign is alright, and the scripted missions themselves are pretty good. Anyway, it doesn't matter in an RTS, and there have been far worse stories.

On that note, anyone know if there's different endings based on the choice you make at the beginning of the Cuotl campaign?

[Matthew Gallant]

I think Toddy did it just to get a rise (haw) out of Tom.

Also, those "curvy tower things" are called minarets.

[TomChick]

It carries over some tenets of Rise of Nations, and the general ebb and flow of battles feels similar, but there are far more differences than similarities. That was an odd comment.

Toddy makes some good points, but it seems like a lot of stuff in the game wasn't clear to him. I'm not terribly surprised, though, since it really is a game for genre wonks. I can see your average Joe Gamer not getting the story, not understanding the mechanics, getting frustrated at the slowdown or online matching, and then just writing it off.

But a 7.6? Harsh. A 7.6 on Gamespot is like a 3 on a scale of 1-10. I challenge Toddy to an online 1v1 game! :)

-Tom

[Angrycoder]

Rise of Legends has its flaws, but being too similar to RoN isn't one of them.

So far my major complaints with the game are:

1) Multiplayer instability

2) piss poor documentation. There is no tech tree in the manual, not enough of specific detail regarding what all the upgrades and techs actually do, and no list of counters. There are tons of tool tips in the game that detail all this, but its really a pain to try and plan out build orders and figure out which unit is better using tool tips. Hell, I took a look at the strategy guide and it didn't even have that type of info in it.

3) Weak sounds

4) It seems like they created an interesting world, but there is no backstory to be found anywhere. The campaign has giant gaps in the story and very little context.

[TomChick]

BTW, the best way to learn RoL is to read through the Game Tips, which you can access from the main menu, or in the game from the pause menu.

The Game Tips are broken into basic tips, advanced tips, and then race specific tips, each consisting of about 30 little bite-size chunks of information. I guarantee if you read through the basic tips and the tips for the race you want to play, you'll be pretty much up to speed on what's going on.

-Tom

[Dave Long]

I thought the pop-up tips when you mouse over stuff were great. I had no problems picking the game up quickly and I hadn't spent that much time with Rise of Nations before it.

I guess I'm one of those "genre wonks" though.

[ioticus]

There is a nation info pdf on the CD as well.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I haven't had the sound problems that some people complain about. I can hear my musketeers just fine, and I think it's awesome how firing a volley sounds different from firing normally.

I don't give a shit about the story. I'd rather they got gameplay right and the story wrong than the other way around. And by the standards of computer games, there's NOTHING wrong with the story or the backstory. Was Warcraft 3 really any better in this regard?

Multiplayer instability, yeah, it's true. In fewer syllables, we call it "Gamespy."

Poor documentation... I dunno, I seem to be picking it up okay and so do a lot of other people.

The bottom line here is that this game is my favorite RTS thus far. (full disclosure: I have not played BFME2. I wasn't a big fan of the first one, but even so, I should probably check it out.) I like the pacing, I like the sides, and I like the strategery. Such a wholeheartedly good game deserves to be recognized and played, and for a product like this, on the Gamespot scale, anything less than 8.5 is a frigid Dis.

I am afraid that RoL is going to get distressingly mediocre reviews and sell poorly, and vanish into history as a forgotten classic. This is a noble fate but not a glorious one. Maybe there's still time for an expansion pack to save it, one with plenty of STORY for the story-lovers at Gamespot.

[Damien Neil]

Originally Posted by Unicorn McGriddle

I haven't had the sound problems that some people complain about. I can hear my musketeers just fine, and I think it's awesome how firing a volley sounds different from firing normally.

The overall experience was greatly improved for me by going into the sound preferences and tuning things to mix the effects higher and everything else lower. I'm not certain if the strangely-low default settings were an artifact of my system or just the way things are, but the game sounds just fine to me now.

[Jab2565]

I like the story, and the campaign seems to be more developed then most singleplayer rts games I've played recentily. Besides the crappy sound, it's the multiplayer issues that are pissing me off. I'm going to have check out those tips though to see if it will help.

[Rorschach]

Originally Posted by ioticus

There is a nation info pdf on the CD as well.

It's the same information as page 35 on in the manual.

[ioticus]

Originally Posted by Rorschach

It's the same information as page 35 on in the manual.

My manual has a list of taunts on that page.

[christopher]

Originally Posted by Unicorn McGriddle

I am afraid that RoL is going to get distressingly mediocre reviews and sell poorly, and vanish into history as a forgotten classic.

Why would this happen? Are people sort of overlooking this game because of the E3 coverage? That's a shame if true, because it's probably better than most of the garbage they're showing there.

[Luke M]

I think E3 might account for whatever the first week of Rise of Legend's life was, but the subsequent weeks look like they're going to be defined by mixed reviews from major sources and the affects that has on the game.

[Toddy]

Originally Posted by Matthew Gallant

I think Toddy did it just to get a rise (haw) out of Tom.

Also, those "curvy tower things" are called minarets.

Yeah, I know. That was supposed to be an off-the-cuff sort of joke. Went over really well, I see.

[Toddy]

Originally Posted by TomChick

It carries over some tenets of Rise of Nations, and the general ebb and flow of battles feels similar, but there are far more differences than similarities. That was an odd comment.

Toddy makes some good points, but it seems like a lot of stuff in the game wasn't clear to him. I'm not terribly surprised, though, since it really is a game for genre wonks. I can see your average Joe Gamer not getting the story, not understanding the mechanics, getting frustrated at the slowdown or online matching, and then just writing it off.

But a 7.6? Harsh. A 7.6 on Gamespot is like a 3 on a scale of 1-10. I challenge Toddy to an online 1v1 game! :)

-Tom

The feel/character is very similar to RoN, IMO, as I said. I know there are more differences than similarities when it comes to comparing the nuts and bolts. I don't say the games are alike in that respect at all.

And, er, I think I'm clear on everything, thanks. I get where BHG was trying to go with the story; I just thought the game didn't get there. It's like 25% of the cutscenes or something were cut out at the last minute. I don't think you should have to assume or interpret story based on the manual or pdfs or anything, either. That's great for units and extra crazy backstory if the devs want to build up some huge mythology so geeks can write fan-fic or whatever. But not for the basics of story-telling, the stuff you need to identify with the characters, appreciate their motivations as you play, etc.

You up for a game online, email me any time. Well, not anytime exactly. My goddamned piece of crap MS keyboard just finally died tonight, though, and I'm typing this from my wife's goddamned piece of crap MS keyboard in her office. So give me a day or two for the G15 Logitech I just ordered to come in. Man, I've gotta pick up a $10 USB keyboard to have on hand for a spare.

[Quitch]

Originally Posted by Unicorn McGriddle

I don't give a shit about the story. I'd rather they got gameplay right and the story wrong than the other way around. And by the standards of computer games, there's NOTHING wrong with the story or the backstory. Was Warcraft 3 really any better in this regard?

Haven't bought RoL, but I bought Warcraft III and Starcraft solely for the stories. The first campaign of Warcraft III was superb! Sure, it went downhill after that, but I'm glad I played that first campaign. Told the story really well.

Skirmish and online play was fun, but without the story I probably wouldn't have purchased it. If another RTS came out with a decent story, and quality VO, I'd snap it up in a second. The problem is most show such a shocking lack of imagination in their campaigns.

[SlyFrog]

I do not care about the story (which is, admittedly, a subjective preference). The rating, when compared with GameSpot's normal rating scale, is ridiculous and insulting to people who put in hard work to make a good game.

[steve]

Originally Posted by SlyFrog

The rating, when compared with GameSpot's normal rating scale, is ridiculous and insulting to people who put in hard work to make a good game.

I'm pretty sure the guys who made Mortyr worked hard on their game too.

[Lorini]

I think it's pretty obvious that Toddy's review doesn't mesh with the rest of the world. The fan votes are at 9.0 (I know that fan votes tend to be high, but there's not usually that much difference. Also, other review sites (according to Gamespot) are at an average of 8.6.

One wonders what score RoL would have gotten had they not included a story campaign at all? I think significantly dinging an RTS on story is wrong. Sure W3 had a "great" story, but I could not have cared less. Stories are for RPG's and adventure games. RTS'ers just wanna kill stuff :).

I think a comparison of sequels would be in order. In other words, is RoL as different as RoN compared to let's say Civ 3 and Civ4? Or AoE 2 and AoE 3? Had Toddy done that, I could have understood where he was coming from better. Personally, I don't find the two games to be very similar at all, except in basic mechanics, where they are supposed to be similar.

Very disappointing review, I'm a Gamespot subscriber and expected better.

Lorini

[Quitch]

One wonders what score RoL would have gotten had they not included a story campaign at all? I think significantly dinging an RTS on story is wrong. Sure W3 had a "great" story, but I could not have cared less. Stories are for RPG's and adventure games. RTS'ers just wanna kill stuff :).

The Starcraft story was heavily praised in most reviews, and was, I don't doubt, a contributing factor in many, many peoples purchasing decision.

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by steve

I'm pretty sure the guys who made Mortyr worked hard on their game too.

You left out the "good game" part, which I clearly stated. Why did you do that? Would you have had anything to say otherwise? Out of context soundbites should be beyond someone like you.

Working hard alone isn't sufficient. It's the working hard on a "good" game. As in a designer, developer, artist, whatever the hell you want to call them, who actually produces something valuable with effort, as opposed to crap. That's why it is insulting to give it the score that it got. It's insulting because something good was created through effort, and the review therefore demeans the effort spent to get there.

[Lorini]

Originally Posted by Quitch

The Starcraft story was heavily praised in most reviews, and was, I don't doubt, a contributing factor in many, many peoples purchasing decision.

I'll agree that a story may enhance a game, but my point is that it is not necessary. What story does Civ 4 have? And they gave it a 9.0 I believe.

Lorini

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by SlyFrog

You left out the "good" part. Working hard alone isn't sufficient. It's the working hard on a "good" game. As in a designer, developer, artist, whatever the hell you want to call them, who actually produces something valuable with effort, as opposed to crap. That's why it is insulting to give it the score that it got.

So we should only consider the feelings of the developer and think of their hard labor if the game isn't utter swill?

Effort doesn't count in judging the final product.

And 7.6 is a "good" rating. It's almost an 8.

Troy

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

So we should only consider the feelings of the developer and think of their hard labor if the game isn't utter swill?

Effort doesn't count in judging the final product.

And 7.6 is a "good" rating. It's almost an 8.

Troy

No, it doesn't. Of course that's not what I said, but feel free to simply make shit up so you can have pithy responses.

That's why I also clearly established that it is a good game. The amount of effort you put into something, only to have it wrongly scored, does count in the amount that you might be insulted by the stupidity of the review.

In simple terms for you: Game was poorly reviewed because it is good, and it received a low score by GameSpot standards. This is insulting to the hard work that people put in to make a good game. Because they put in effort and got it right, while it appears the reviewer just got it wrong (and I won't comment on the amount of effort that seemingly went into the review).

The score is very low by GameSpot standards for the type of game that RoL is.

[steve]

Originally Posted by SlyFrog

You left out the "good game" part, which I clearly stated. Why did you do that? Would you have had anything to say otherwise? Out of context soundbites should be beyond someone like you.

Using the rating alone as a basis to judge a review is kind of taking it out of context, since the text provides that context. Hello irony.

It's insulting because something good was created, and the review therefore demeans the effort spent to get there.

So, how exactly is the press supposed to divine when something is good? Go by GameRankings? Reader reviews? SlyFrog's opinion? Someone may have liked Mortyr too. At that point, do we have an obligation to rate it higher?

Look, everyone works hard on games. Everyone (presumably) works hard at Gamespot. Brett probably worked hard on that review. In fact, he might have played the game a lot more than anyone posting in this thread. (Or not.)

So, while everyone is free to bash the review, focusing on the rating alone doesn't seem particularly meaningful, nor does using "they worked hard on the game" as a reason to rate it higher.

[Ex-S Woo]

Hmm...I have visions of this other controversial RTS game review thread...

[forgeforsaken]

Man this thread is starting to sound like the whole 7.9 thing over at IGN...

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by steve

Using the rating alone as a basis to judge a review is kind of taking it out of context, since the text provides that context. Hello irony.

Just stop. You're sounding painfully defensive. Here's the answer, and it has nothing to do with irony: don't use a fucking number. End of story. If you want to use the number, get it right, or get the hell out. Don't babble to me about how you give a paper a D, but the context was really in the comments. Good for you, you gave it a fucking D. Much like a grade in high school isn't going to be offset by a college review board reading your english paper to make sure they "understand the grade," that number is not going to be offset by people reading the review and going, "Hey, it got a really shitty score, but you have to take it in context."

All of your stuff about "how are we supposed to know it is good" is right, but also goes without saying. It's obviously my opinion that he screwed this up badly. Did you think I was expressing some divine mandate?