Yay. 12:30 EST, 33 players online.
Guess I’ll be filing this one next to Red Orchestra in the, “Things I paid money for that no one else will be playing.”
Why do I even bother? Why don’t I listen to the intelligent little voice that says, “It doesn’t matter how good it is, no one will be playing this one.”
Oh, except for the people who have played 1000 games in the beta, and are now likely making things worse by slaughtering any new players who do come on with their already established build orders and 15 minute wins.
Yes, I am dour. Yes, I am unfair.
Crap, you would think that the sequel to one of the best RTS games would get more support. Maybe alot of people are playing the single player first?
That is the voice that wants it to be true. The voice that says, “Maybe it just looks like accounting fraud, maybe my stock won’t plummet.” The voice that says, “I’m sure that once people understand how superior Kohan is, they’ll switch from Warcraft.”
I would like to think it is true. I would also like it to rain candy and 20 dollar bills.
I’d think that most people are buying it for the sp only.
What I don’t understand is how with the low crowd online, do we have people already at lvl 6+. Did they reset the score for the public, or did someone actually play for a few hours straight?
Well I’m up for a game now, guess we’ll have to do 1on1 until this gets straighten out.
I state up front that I understand the concept of different strokes for different folks. That being said, I personally can not understand buying an RTS primarily for the single player portion.
I can’t believe Tom Chick’s review is still the only review out for this game. I suppose it’s because of E3?
I can’t believe how much rushing is possible compared to Ron. Every time I play as the cuotl, I get rushed and they have no way to defend against a rush because of the energy cost.
I think that the single player for Ron was probably better then the multi for awhile. Since it was a non linear campaign. This time its more linear yet still more engaging then the other rts games out there imo.
Edge have also published a review. They gave in at 8, whatever that means. I have not read the review fully yet, only glanced at it.
Sad that no-one wants to play. I suspect they are all tied up in garnering news from E3 and playing single player to practice for online.
My excuse: I don’t have it yet.
Did anyone actually see any advertisements for Rol in the month before release? Honestily besides the pre order demo I don’t remember seeing anything promoting Rol in any publication, The only online sites I saw were gamespy and 1up.
It’s not big because (from what i saw in the demo), it doesn’t bring anything substantially better to the RTS plate to get me to stop playing other games, which is the key.
I mean, yea it’s good. I have Oblivion to play, i’ve rediscovering Rome Total War, i’ll drop the occasional game of Age of Empires 3 online, try a little of this and that. Getting another Dom 2 game started. Maybe Empire at War, or Dungeon Seige 2. Maybe a bit World of Warcraft or Guild Wars or whatever. I’ve got far too many games and far too little time.
Nothing RoL brings to the table makes me want to stop playing these other games. Many developers might laugh or be disgusted at the notion of “flash vs. substance”; but honestly, without some flash i’m not that interested in the substance.
And since most of the innovations that this game has were already present in Rise of Nations, it’s not like i’m just dying to see what’s up with the new version of the formula.
I’m not trying to denegrate the game, only explain why i haven’t really had much interest in it (and by association, probably everyone else).
There were ads in the major magazines - very nice ads, too.
My thinking is that it got swallowed up in the pre-E3 and E3 hype. The early days are important for a game like this and it could take a while for any buzz to get going. There was quite a bit of coverage in the last year, but not in the last month or so.
Plus, as talented as BHG and Reynolds are, it’s not Ensemble and it’s not Blizzard. There isn’t the built-in audience or community strength that those developers have. RoN was a great, great game but never attracted the MP following that WC3 and AoE3 have.
That’s certainly what I’m doing - I’ll play through the campaign, try a few skirmish games against the computer, and then probably move on.
I’m sort of interested in the idea that this game doesn’t have enough chrome, though - I’ve only really seen the Vinci so far, but the art direction is extremely impressive.
I think it’s a spring Saturday afternoon at 12:30 and people are either 1., sleeping still, or 2, outdoors or running errands. Also, it’s a holiday weekend; folks are traveling to go see Mom.
For Rise of Nations, I have only played it in single-player and at LANs with friends. I have never played an RTS on the internet with random opponents.
Exactly. I like a good RTS, but would never consider playing it online… I think I tried multiplayer C&C and hated it. That was that.
The problem with saying you will only play it single player is that does not explain the number RTSs that do have a large player base. Obviously some games are capable of bringing out large numbers of online players.
RTS single player: Look at the pretty units, play around with the nifty things they can do, kick butt.
RTS online: Die screaming beneath the booted feet of a player who clickclickclickclicked out a perfect sequence of dozens of buildings and units, never wasting a single second.
The first option can be somewhat fun for me. The second…not so.