Rise of Nations Gold

Microsoft Game Studios sends word that Rise of Nations, the debut RTS game from Brian Reynolds and Big Huge Games, has gone gold, and is slated to ship to North American stores May 20. In celebration of the news MSN Gaming Zone's Chat with Brian Reynolds will discuss the now-gold game at 8:00 PM EDT. Here's the description of RoN that accompanies the announcement:
Rise of Nations combines the epic scope of traditional turn-based strategy (TBS) games with the fast-paced action of RTS games. The game allows players to create new cities, improve their city infrastructure and expand national borders. Players have the option to win through military might using everything from slingshots to cannons to stealth bombers, corner the market on key commodities, and wheel and deal with a wide variety of Nations. Unlike other historical RTS games, Rise of Nations allows gamers to quickly play through eight historical epochs of time from the Ancient Age to the Information age, covering 6,000 years of history. Gamers can play a quick battle on any map as one of 18 nations, or play Conquer the World, the unique blending of TBS and RTS gameplay. This latest title from Big Huge Games Inc. founder Brian Reynolds (designer of Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri) will be available for an estimated retail price of $49.95 U.S. For more information about Rise of Nations, visit the official site at http://www.riseofnations.com.
View : : :
19.
 
Re: Is it just me...
Apr 23, 2003, 07:54
Quboid
 
19.
Re: Is it just me... Apr 23, 2003, 07:54
Apr 23, 2003, 07:54
 Quboid
 
As for the game being too military based, most RTS games are when it gets down to it. I imagine that RoN will be the same way. I'd love to see an RTS that allowed for a number of peaceful victories, but I'm patient.

That's certainly true - if anything this has a larger constructive side than most strat games. However, it still doesn't appear to enough for my taste, although I still don't really know what the game's about in detail. I prefer a constructive strat game with perhaps a small military side - Anno 1503 struck a good balance. I can't blame Big Huge Games for going with what the majority want, but for me personally, it's a shame.

One thing I'm not sure about is loads of peaceful ending. It would be nice, but there simply isn't many good ways that I can think of. Diplomatic victory through UN (or similar international body) is OK, although I've always found games' diplomacy models lacking. I don't like culture/influence victories like CivIII and possibly thing - taking the odd city is fine but to take over the world seems ridiculous. The best peaceful victory I've seen in a game is the Civ series space program victory. This, and to a much lesser extent the UN victory, actually feels like an objective genuinely worth chasing, rather than an objective put in by the designers who wanted to add more victory types.

Not that the lack of peaceful endings bothers me much. I never play a game just to win, if the actual getting there isn't fun, I don't play and if it is fun, then the ending isn't a big deal. I find the best strat games are the one with no real ending, Simcity or Anno, in which you just play until you feel you've achieved the city or whatever that you set out to make. However, to give a game an entirely open ending requires a large constructive element - there's no point making Age of Empires open, because sooner or later people will run out of buildings and reach their pop cap and then war is the only thing to do - and once war starts, sooner or later there will be only one player...



On a completely seperate note, does anyone know how big the maps are? Is it like AoE where you have a few square miles or like Civ where you have a few thousand miles square?

Cheers,
Quboid

War isn't about who's right, its about who's left.
This comment was edited on Apr 23, 08:20.
Avatar 10439
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
2.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
5.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
3.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
4.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
6.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
7.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
8.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
9.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
16.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
17.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
20.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
 19.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
  Re: Is it just me...
10.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
11.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
12.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
13.
Apr 22, 2003Apr 22 2003
14.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
15.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003
18.
Apr 23, 2003Apr 23 2003