Rise of Nations Review
Can turn-based concepts work in a real time format?
RTS: We're back from commercials, with both halves of Barry Brenesal's psyche battling it out over various aspects of Rise of Nations. I'm RTS...
TBS: ...and I'm TBS. We've now moved beyond issues of startup and ease-of-use, into the actual gameplay, itself.
RTS: That's right, and something you said earlier struck me; that's there's nothing new in Rise of Nations, just a lot of borrowed ideas.
TBS: Well, yes. And most of them come from TBS games. For instance, a host of buildings offer named researches such as Herbal Lore and Pharmaceuticals. These in turn grant your people new abilities or improve existing ones. All this is very similar to Alpha Centauri or the Civilization series, as are the many Wonders you can build, or the anachronistic ruins that mysteriously provide a one-time resource boost.
RTS: So it isn't original. Is originality that important? It's how you use what you've got that makes the difference.
TBS: And that brings me to my next point, thank you. Rise of Nations may use various features found in TBS games, but it doesn't implement these features with any real personality. Consider each of your named researches: it has an effect, whether on resource gathering, unit competence, etc. But the research itself remains nothing more than a handy label. The strategic benefits are made clear, but not the importance of the research itself in terms of civilization's progress. So a player learns Herbal Lore, but never learns what that progress means, its eventual impact on the codification and composition of plants, etc. In the final analysis, Herbal Lore is just a dry, nondescript step on a ladder towards victory, differing from, say, the Taxation technology only in terms of its game benefits, rather than what it actually means.
Other developments in TBS games seem to have been absorbed into Rise of Nations in a rudimentary fashion. Diplomacy is a good example. You can make alliances, but you can't make temporary treaties that involve a group of nations agreeing to battle a specific third party, as in Europa Universalis II. (Have I mentioned that EU II is an RTS? And a more original one, too.) Nor can you threaten neighbors into backing off from alliances made with your foes, or get them to agree to an exchange of maps. If you go to war, an AI ally won't automatically do so, which destroys one of the main reasons for a standard alliance in games! Exchange units or researches? No way.
RTS: I think you're missing the point. Rise of Nations isn't about the intricacies of behind-the-scenes manipulations. Like any standard RTS, its raison d'etre is building structures and units to take over the other guy. Reynolds has created a reasonable compromise in the game that lets you keep your attention focused on the playing field, on a single main screen, while adding an extra dimension through dramatically increased options for research. It's not too taxing for a quick multiplayer session, yet strong enough to add attractions to standalone mode.
And now if you've finished complaining about what Rise of Nations lacks as a TBS, I'd like to discuss some of its RTS gameplay aspects I really enjoyed.
First, there's the way research is deliberately spread out among a host of buildings at any given time. This means that instead of researching one particular technology, as you would in the Civilization or Master of Orion series, you have (after the initial startup phase) a broader selection of technologies and upgrades to learn through simultaneous resource investment, if you so choose. You can even build libraries in multiple cities that research differing technologies. As all research is resource-driven, however, you have to be selective about the technologies your people study, and balance these against upgrades to resource collection and unit quality. It's all a major part of Rise of Nations strategy.
Second, I appreciate the smooth flow of technological development as you move from Age to Age. This was not something that could automatically be expected, as each of the eight Ages, which are researchable, unlock a host of potential improvements (which in turn depend upon, you guessed it, more research). It would have been all too easy in a game that placed so much stock in technology for any given Age to be all too quickly achievable, with a particular technology that provided the nearest thing to a quick victory. (Alpha Centauri's fighter jets, available upon completion of the Doctrine: Air Power technology, provided just such a boost.) Of course, there are bound to be individual technologies that various Rise of Nations players swear by, assuring us all that a straight path towards its completion results in automatic victory; but if so, I've yet to find it, and I've been playing Rise of Nations for more than eighty hours. There are certainly different overall winning strategies suited to various types of players, but I don't think the game is so poorly balanced as to give one path an easy route to success.
National borders: among my faves. I suppose I really only value it because the last game in that TBS series you were once so fond of, Civilization, permitted foreign units to walk right into the middle of your territory and set up cities without even waving hello. That was utterly unbelievable. By contrast, Rise of Nations expands the perimeter of your nation through cities and research, but always within a certain distance of your home territory. Territorial integrity and unit attrition prevent you from thrusting a citizen unit deep into your opponent's, shall we say, flanks, and they can't do the same to you.
And speaking of flanks, I applaud the developers' application of combat bonuses to flanking attack strategies. Entrenchment, too, and formations, which can be kept during troop movement or allowed to lapse until arrival at an end point: your choice.
I should mention the strong AI, as well. The developers are justifiably proud of it; so much so, that they allow you to dispel the fog of war (it's another one of those great options), and watch the various AI-run nations themselves. It's a great way to get a sense of what the AI considers an efficient civilization-building strategy. At weaker than average difficulty settings, the AI is less aggressive and sensible: enemy scouts run away, but return to let you kill them, and enemy citizens remain at work while you attack, instead of going inside their buildings and shooting at your troops. Above average difficulty levels give extra resources to your foes, but the AI remains unchanged. It's essentially "honest," or as honest as an AI which attempts to impersonate a clever, scheming human being can be.
TBS: On the AI, at least, we agree. I think the AI, plus the complexity of research options and the pause/command structure, clearly show that BHG has placed a considerable emphasis on Rise of Nations as a singleplayer game. It's refreshing to find that at a time when fat cat game company producers are telling developers that we, the players, only have interest in multiplayer titles, and couldn't care less about the savvy of a computer opponent; all sales evidence to the contrary.
I suspect that now you can see my problem in some detail, and no, I won¿t take lithium for it. I place its origins squarely at BHG¿s doorstep for creating a game that borrows extensively but cautiously from the TBS genre, doing what it does extremely well but offering next to nothing which is new.
Does that make it bad? Hardly, but it does indicate the kind of dichotomy of views among players that Rise of Nations will probably face. Despite the PR rhetoric, this isn¿t the RTS that brings in all the TBS diehards, looking for a depth of gameplay that goes beyond the standard feature set created in Dune 2, more than a dozen years ago. Gameplay will vary slightly if you play towards different winning conditions, but not as though a group of new features were being slotted into place. Rise of Nation¿s diplomatic options are slim and its nations lack real personality, unlike such other RTS titles as Europa Universalis II and the Total War series. Similarly, there are RTS games out there made by Topware that will appeal more to the player who wants a genuine 3D use of terrain for strategic purposes.
On the other hand, Rise of Nations is incredibly rich in optional gaming conditions. Multiplayer is fun, standalone is a challenge, the AI is among the best I¿ve seen in an RTS, and the learning curve is surprisingly slight. A part of me thinks BHG did an excellent job on this one, while another part believes a chance was missed to move more than cautiously beyond Age of Empires and design something strikingly fresh and imaginative.
In the end, though, I can¿t fault BHG for delivering anything less than a professional product that will strongly please RTS players.