Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends Review

PC Review by Kieron Gillen

14 June, 2006

Thinking about Rise of Legends makes me think that maybe we're just doomed.

It precipitates while I'm sitting and trying to work a way into the review, when a friend IMs me, asking if I've played it yet. He's just spent the evening playing it and isn't quite convinced. He thinks that its fiction gets in the way of the mechanics too much. "Yeah," he notes, "I'm really glad they tried, but I wouldn't recommend this to many people."

And suddenly I'm really sad.

Of course, Big Huge Games' Brian Reynolds has made this mistake before when he lead the design efforts of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Regularly argued as one of the greatest turn-based games of all time, it got dismissed by people unwilling to wrestle with these enormous science-fiction tech-trees. Civ-in-Space it may have been, but it was immediately a less accessible thing just because... well, if you choose to develop the Wheel, you'll have a rough idea what it does. Choosing to research the Proton-proton proton-blob (Proton) IV? Not a chance in hell. Out of here!

Similarly in Rise of Legends, where rather than the usual Tolkein Assortment we have three sides each with an array of creatures whose purpose may not be immediately recognisable. Which of the Alim's dragons does what precisely then? It's a hurdle before you can start to tear apart the mechanisms, which drives you away with the game and...

Oh, what on earth are we saying? Every bloody review of Rise of Legends has said this. And every review is right. But why on earth are we all so stupid? The three sides in Rise of Legends are the Vinci, the Alim and the Cuotl. The Vinci are a steam-punk retro-technological race, roughly inspired by the doodles of Leonardo Da Vinci. The Alim are a middle-eastern-flavoured magical desert race, riffing tightly off the Arabian Nights. The Cuotl are the Incan-Gods-were-actually-aliens of '70s early pop-conspiracy book Chariot of the Gods. Or, in more modern terms, the bad guys from Stargate, but Incans instead of Egyptians.

'Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends' Screenshot freud

Mr Freud would like a word.

Oh, come on. These are not complicated ideas. But even ideas which step away from the expectations this little are somehow a little outré for mainstream videogames.

So we're doomed. Orcs and WW2 GIs, forever then.

Not that Rise of Legends helps its position by its choice of mechanics for each race. Rather than Rise of Nations with its basically similar mass of nations, each of Rise of Legends' races has radically different propositions, performing similar tasks in different ways. For example, take research points. The Vinci gain theirs through building individual buildings, separate from their central cities, each of which can be upgraded into a unique structure (such as a long-distance spyglass). The Alim can expand their cities with Magus districts, which provides points - but it's a choice between a Magus district or other options (Merchant or Military). The Cuotl get research points from similar expanding of their cities, but get research points from any of the districts they stick on. Completely different mechanisms to get your head around, and, perhaps obviously, the technological trees you climb with these points are completely different from race to race. Spin that out across all the parts of the three races, and there's a hell of a lot to learn.

So stop being a wimp. Rise of Legends is a maximalist real-time strategy game, offering you a lot to wrestle with. It's worth noting that they don't make it easy for you, while simultaneously making it as easy for you as possible. In other words, they do try their very hardest to teach you all this. Its use of pop-up controls is utterly exemplary, with anything you care to point your mouse at folding out to a description. A button press can expand it further, going into the absolute gritty parts of the simulation for those hardcore with calculators for minds. In fact, generally speaking, its mechanics and design are as solid as you can ask in an RTS. In terms of all the classical RTS which I've reviewed since starting to write for Eurogamer, this is the one which feels the most solid, the most right.

'Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends' Screenshot pirata

Pirata. Like Piñata, except you beat them with ground-to-air weapons.

The Campaign mode is arguably the heart of the single-player experience. It's a continuing attempt to mix the freeform board-game style of play of something like the Total War games with the traditional story-heavy narrative mission. To this end, each of the three campaigns (Two Alims and a Vinci. You'd have thought they'd have done one for each of the three races, wouldn't you? Yes, you would, and so they did. Just trying to create a little tension) takes place on a simple strategy map, with clearly marked objectives. For example, on the first you're trying to defeat the Doge. His fortress is on the far side of the map, but a couple of regions at either corner would be useful to take out first. Each region between is a level, with multiple pathways possible with each region giving different bonuses and different sorts of missions. Do you go for the easy mission or the harder one with a better reward? These also lead to reward points which can be used to upgrade individual regions' defences (as opposing generals wander the map looking to reclaim what you've conquered) or economic abilities. It's stripped down, but pleasant enough to structure the individual missions. It even provides more of a sense of an interconnected world where the game's events are happening, so the marriage of narrative and interaction is at least partially successful.

The problem being is that it's only partially successful. Despite allowing multiple routes, especially on the opening missions you'll realise you're being herded into completing multiple easy regions to build up your forces before approaching the harder regions. It's more of a device to let you choose which of the game's levels to play next than a proper strategy game in and of itself. On the narrative side its flawed by i) the narrative not being particularly compelling anyway and ii) the narrative events contradicting the freeform elements. For example, in the opening campaign I finally make the way to the Doge's fortress, where I get the cut-scene of the man preparing for the assault and us all worrying about his cheerful ultra-cannon. Great! Except that I can see on the strategy map that the Doge's army is actually two regions south besieging one of my settlements. It's aspects like this which keep Rise of Legends away from the nine it occasionally flirted - it's so generally professional the bits where it goes awry are terribly obvious.

'Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends' Screenshot 4am

At 4am in the morning, I really can't think of anything to say about this. Leave me alone! No, shove it!

The skirmish and multiplayer (via Gamespy, which is having some teething issues, as-per-bloody-usual) are perhaps a more convincing proof of the game's strength. Rise of Legends is nothing if not a game about its design, and the basic competition between two minds (or the simulation thereof) shows the game at its best. It leans towards the faster end of the RTS, with turtling an impossibility and attacks often from the very opening of the game (unless early attacks has been turned off). To grow in power it's essential to go out there and start converting the non-player settlements to your charge and so on. With an unparalleled possible use of shortcuts, to be genuinely competitive online Rise of Legends will probably lean towards the piano-player abilities - but it's interesting virtuoso piano-playing rather than just being about the basic ability to build an identical settlement as quickly as possible so you can churn out the units. It's about mastering any tool you can to win this bloody war. It's about having too much at any time to do, and choosing what needs your attention most. Rise of Nations, but more so - perhaps too much more so for some people.

Christ. I'm aware that I'm not selling this as well as I could, and everything I say seems to be undercutting Rise of Legends appeal. I need to stress that even when it abstractly fails - like the campaign mode - it falls comfortably above the vast majority of its peers. When it excels it excels in the same way as an aged whiskey or a finely made leather sofa does: it exudes quality and craftsmanship. Rise of Legends is an extremely-good-to-great game. Give it time and you'll love it.

Or put it this way. Contrary to my online friend, I'd recommend this to people.

8/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-24 of 24 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
UncleLou
14/06/06 @ 07:22
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Good review, and agreed.

It's about having too much at any time to do, and choosing what needs your attention most

That's a good point - there's always a lot going on, on diferent parts of the map. I hope it's meant to be a bit overwhelming, and not an indicator for me being too slow. :)
neuroniky
14/06/06 @ 07:25
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Ummmmmm... the review in the end sounds something like: This is Rise of Nations. Only that it has 3 fictional and very distinct factions. And you're stupid if you don't "get" the faction they're offering. And it has a bad single player campaign. And a lot of shortcuts to master.

Which tells me almost nothing about the game. I didn't play Rise of Nations, but from what I've heard, it was pretty complex. I was looking forward for a review of this game from EG, but maybe reviewing it at 4 a.m. in the morning has lowered a little bit the quality of the review...

Just my 2 eurocents, usually like the EG style, but this review was a major disappointment.

Chaser
14/06/06 @ 07:53
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If you are not sure, download the demo - it will let you play two of the races in skirmish mode and give you an idea of how things work.
UncleLou
14/06/06 @ 08:11
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Kieron, out of interest, what do you think of the graphics?

Just asking because there is a bit of a forum discussion going on, with people using terms like "outdated" and "appaling". Which surprised me, as I think it's one of the prettiest RTS games to date, techincally and artistically.
bionutz
14/06/06 @ 08:15
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah neuroniky I second you on that one.
jack_klugman
14/06/06 @ 08:17
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
UncleLou - Yes, I'm vaguely curious about this too. The game stands up well in still screens, but some of the animations in the gameplay videos looked a little clunky. And word on this Brem?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 14/06/06 @ 09:18
Have_to_Speak_Up
14/06/06 @ 08:18
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Good point Neuroniky,

Another example of the reader being "stupid" if he doesn't appreciate what the reader appreciates. Check out the Darwinia review where the reviewer manages to find an excuse for poor path-finding and then calls us all stupid again.

It was nominated for awards!

;)
pauleyc
14/06/06 @ 08:20
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Interesting review, even though RoN (especially the leaning "towards the faster end of the RTS") isn't exactly my cup of tea.

And I gather you meant rather "Tolkien Assortment", but since it was 4 a.m. I'll forgive this one. ;-)
Edited 1 times, most recently on 14/06/06 @ 09:23
UncleLou
14/06/06 @ 08:39
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
UncleLou - Yes, I'm vaguely curious about this too. The game stands up well in still screens, but some of the animations in the gameplay videos looked a little clunky. And word on this Brem?

The animations of the smaller units are a bit sparse, but the animations of the larger ones (and there are dozens of different really large unit types) are beautiful, in my opinion. And there's an insane amount of stuff going on on the screen quite often.
jack_klugman
14/06/06 @ 08:48
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
UncleLou - The art style is glorious; original (well... for RPG games - obviously not original in THE WORLD) and distinctive for it. This isn't a game breaker for me - it was just something I'd noticed.
BremXJones
14/06/06 @ 09:33
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Re: Graphics. Didn't mention the graphics as I didn't think they were a real issue. You shouldn't mention graphics unless they're either actively help or hinder a game nowadays, I think.

Neuroliky: No, I specifically *didn't* say you were stupid if you didn't get it. I'm saying that actually, yes, it creates a barrier for us to get over before getting into the game... and isn't that a sad quirk of human nature and speaks badly for the future of videogames in terms of even vaguely original fiction?

EDIT: And Have_To_Speak_Up: I have to speak up here too - no, no matter what Something Awful may have said, I didn't say that if you didn't like the pathfinding you were stupid. The comment was specifically about *reviewers* who couldn't look at the game and realise it was part of the lineage of Cannon Fodder, Syndicate, et al rather than the modern RTS. If so, then the reviewer really doesn't have a decent understanding of game history. It's a subtle point, but I really don't insult the reader.

(And - y'know - the comment was a riposte to the couple of Darwinia reviews which had already said that anyone who liked it was just trying to get indie-cred points. You patronise me, I'll patronise you. Maybe I shouldn't have let the passion get in the way but... well, sometimes the passion does.)

KG
Edited 3 times, most recently on 14/06/06 @ 10:47
bionutz
14/06/06 @ 09:35
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm sorry but I have to say this again. While there is a preview for this game telling lots, I still fail to see reading the review for which reasons it gets a 8/10. What are its key differentiators? I'm quite disappointed with this review - does this short simple review mean that actually the game is bad?
Teeth
14/06/06 @ 09:36
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
What I thought was great about this, and granted I don't play many RTS games, was that at least in the demo, the resource points never ran out. Your success isn't limited by how much you can build and not have destroyed in the time between starting mining and when the resources run out.
neuroniky
14/06/06 @ 10:10
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Kieron: my point wasn't that I felt insulted by that "stupid" comment (which I actually found well thought). But, that the "stupid" part occupied something like one fourth / one third ofthe review, and that wasn't something really needed to comment on the game. It was a good introduction for a 2 page full blown review, but this was almost a "short review" of the game, and that was probably the most explained concept in the review... not something really useful for somebody interested in knowing the game mechanics (or what units have the distinct factions...). That was my point actually: it was a fun read, but it failed to provide me with the info I was looking for.
Stoatboy
14/06/06 @ 10:12
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I agree about the unusual units being a barrier. I'm playing this at the moment - I'm still on the first campaign - the Vinci, and that's fine generally. Infantry, cavalry, helicopter-things and tanks. I can guess what each of these is good for. And when you build a juggernaut you really don't need to be told what it's going to be good at :)

But when I played as the Alin in the demo previously it was a bit different. WTF is a salamander good at? Is it better than a glass spider at fighting tanks or not? How about a dragon? Not a clue. When I get to the Alin campaign I fear I may actually have to RTFM.

I think it may have been a good idea to have the Vinci fighting the Alin in the first campaign - that way when you start playing as the Alin you'd have a pretty good idea if one particular unit was good at destroying tanks, simply because it would be the one that destroyed all your tanks earlier.
UncleLou
14/06/06 @ 10:17
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Stoatboy, if you enable the tooltips (which they are by default), you'll see what a unit is good for right in the game itself. No need to RTFM. :)


Stoatboy
14/06/06 @ 10:31
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
UncleLou - Ta - I'll look out for them. I saw that mentioned in the review too, which came as I surprise, because I haven't noticed them tbh (and I certainly haven't disabled them). Must pay more attention in future. Then again I have been somewhat preoccupied with the legions of enemy units and occasional giant mechanical spider-monstrosities that have been swarming all over me.
BremXJones
14/06/06 @ 10:32
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
neuroniky: Goddit. I had conflated your position with other people later in the thread. My mistake.

KG
Edited 1 times, most recently on 14/06/06 @ 11:34
Have_to_Speak_Up
14/06/06 @ 10:36
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fair come back Brem :)
I certianly loved Cannon Fodder but I'd be annoyed if developers used heritage as an excuse. But anyway...

"Re: Graphics. Didn't mention the graphics as I didn't think they were a real issue. You shouldn't mention graphics unless they're either actively help or hinder a game nowadays, I think."

Just remember that graphics are important to a lot of people and that writing for Eurogamer isn't just about writing to the forums. It's a small point but proven I believe by two of the forum users asking about the here and engaging in discussion.

I'm really not criticising I promise (!) here but don't you think that some people find just as much joy in the artisitic elements of the game as the mechanics? Just wondered.
BremXJones
14/06/06 @ 11:04
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh, I agree. But when they're in the "They work" boundary, why bother wasting word-count on them? Especially when you can see how it looks.

Er... I know that I burn word-count on a lot of things, but I do have to priotise what's essential. The whole issue of the multi-races is the core thing which is going to lose or gather people with the game, so I perhaps I overwrote it. But it was only commissioned for 1000 words, and I overwrote to 1500 anyway...

KG
Have_to_Speak_Up
14/06/06 @ 11:12
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You're being shafted there K! The KNOW you'll overwrite and elaborate to give them 50% extra for their money... cunning cunning.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 14/06/06 @ 12:13
BremXJones
14/06/06 @ 11:15
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh, I love EG. They give us a mandate to have some fun, which buys a little overwriting. :)

KG
auto
25/09/09 @ 06:37
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show

Comments: 1-24 of 24 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Metaboli

X View gallery