Gamespot gives Rise of Legends a 7.6

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?

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?

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

Also, those “curvy tower things” are called minarets.

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! :)


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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

My manual has a list of taunts on that page.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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