Out of Eight RoP Review: 6/8

[arsan]

Hi!
Here is the Out of Eight RoP Review

http://www.outofeight.info/2010/03/rise-of-prussia-review.html

The Good: Reduced unit count and smaller geographic area makes the game easier to control, comprehensive orders and postures for historically detailed units, variety of leader attributes, mostly informative interface, capable AI, play by e-mail, nice 2-D map, unique setting

The Not So Good: Too similar to previous titles, needs more smaller scenarios

What say you? A smaller scale makes for a more intimate and relatively simplified strategy experience: 6/8[/I]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Carnium]

Here is the correct link
http://www.outofeight.info/2010/03/rise-of-prussia-review.html

[arsan]

Ups! sorry! I fixed the link. It should work now!

[arsan]

No wonder I dislike reviewers, they have absolutely NO clue what goes into game design/development.

Heh, at least this one can tell apart a turn based game from an RTS game... many others can't We can agree with him or not, but at least has played the game a little.

Just for the laughs, check this so called "review" of Rise of Prussia
http://feralentertainment.blogspot.com/2010/03/rise-of-prussia.html
Anybody who have even glanced over one of AGEOD games will have good fun
How can a guy be so clueless about what he writes about?? (not to mention spelling...)
I love the "levels" part
Cheers

[Clovis]

Except mixing WW1 to the AGE engine, I feel this review as fair as possible. Rise of Prussia doesn't have real breaking new features but is a superb wargame based on a wonderful engine. Now, HPS is doing the same,and even worse, because the new features are rare and without any real importance.

VGN will introduce the new breaking features and while waiting we have another wonderful wargame to play !

Moreover, the wargaming scene is less empty than in 2005/2006 period. there are some good games offered by others publishers. the competition is much more important and the community isn't much extensible too...

[Jarkko]

While I do not agree with the reviewer regarding the "essentially an expansion" thought, I do agree that RoP *does* need more smaller scenarios. For a new player there is only Invasion of Saxony, and while it is a nice small scenario which takes the about 2-3 hours of time (which I think is the max time for a one-evening scenario), it doesn't offer that much of enjoyment in after a few times. There would after all be lots of possibilities for smaller "battle"-scenarios, like the operations in Hanover 1757, or Pommerania or East Prussia I know it takes quite an effort to make such scenarios, but I think those would be easier to grasp for new players (game-reviewers included ).

[Generalisimo]

Except mixing WW1 to the AGE engine,

I also found that a bit "funny", but it is really a minor error while trying to "list" all the previous AGEOD games...

I feel this review as fair as possible. Rise of Prussia doesn't have real breaking new features but is a superb wargame based on a wonderful engine. Now, HPS is doing the same,and even worse, because the new features are rare and without any real importance.

Well, I do think ROP is a great improvement over AACW 1.0... a HUGE improvement.
Even in comparison to the last AGE game, WIA, there are a lot of new things... in my opinion, being the major one, the Detailed Combat Report.
But I think the problem resides in what you call an "expansion".
IMHO, an expansion is something like Alexander was to Rome Total War... some new playing variations over exactly the same "base".
By just looking at the map, you can't say that about AACW and ROP for example.
Yes, the "mechanism" behind it are more or less the same, but that's true also for any RPG out there... or for any FPS out there... so, after I have played "Wolfenstein 3D" around 1992, I should never play any other FPS because they all are "expansions" from that? ... really, no.

[Clovis]

I also found that a bit "funny", but it is really a minor error while trying to "list" all the previous AGEOD games...


Well, I do think ROP is a great improvement over AACW 1.0... a HUGE improvement.
Even in comparison to the last AGE game, WIA, there are a lot of new things... in my opinion, being the major one, the Detailed Combat Report.
But I think the problem resides in what you call an "expansion".
IMHO, an expansion is something like Alexander was to Rome Total War... some new playing variations over exactly the same "base".
By just looking at the map, you can't say that about AACW and ROP for example.
Yes, the "mechanism" behind it are more or less the same, but that's true also for any RPG out there... or for any FPS out there... so, after I have played "Wolfenstein 3D" around 1992, I should never play any other FPS because they all are "expansions" from that? ... really, no.

The important point isn't what is ROP, but what players and reviewers will think of. Without any major change in gfx or gameplay, they will see ROP as an expansion or whatever term they will choose to describe a new product in the same line, with some new options or features, about like a new car supporting the same name than the precedent. The new things in it will be appreciated only by the few who have a large knwoledge of the AGE engine, your case, mine, but definitly not of the casual wargamer...

They're less difference between RPO and WIA or even AACW 1.0 than they were between BOA and other computer wargames. In any case, this review isn't saying ROP to be uninteresting, it's just stating about a new iteration of the AGE engine, fairly and soundly. Building games on the same engine with a progressive improvment in gameplay isn't bad in the long run, and is certainly the way to go, but in the short run, you can't just expect reviews to focalize only on the new features as groundbreaking.


Oh..about FPS...FPS aren't played by most for gameplay sake...they are played for gfx. The same for RPG , except a minority of players who will always prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 3

[lodilefty]

Oh..about FPS...FPS aren't played by most for gameplay sake...they are played for gfx. The same for RPG , except a minority of players who will always prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 3

You must mean me

[Generalisimo]

The important point isn't what is ROP, but what players and reviewers will think of. Without any major change in gfx or gameplay, they will see ROP as an expansion or whatever term they will choose to describe a new product in the same line, with some new options or features, about like a new car supporting the same name than the precedent. The new things in it will be appreciated only by the few who have a large knwoledge of the AGE engine, your case, mine, but definitly not of the casual wargamer...

Sure.... but reviewers, with all due respect to them because I maybe generalizing too much here, tend to see what they want.
I am tired of reading how good Empire Total War is/was... and really, you could read my comments about that game many times in many forums, I think I do not need to repeat them again, it can be summarized in: .
Even Johan from Paradox had a little (public) "battle" with a Creative Assembly developer about the AI and how "fun" it is to play Empire.
But check the reviews about ETW in any popular site...

Now, check ETW and Napoleon Total War... two "different" games ... then check the reviews about the later...

They're less difference between RPO and WIA or even AACW 1.0 than they were between BOA and other computer wargames. In any case, this review isn't saying ROP to be uninteresting, it's just stating about a new iteration of the AGE engine, fairly and soundly. Building games on the same engine with a progressive improvment in gameplay isn't bad in the long run, and is certainly the way to go, but in the short run, you can't just expect reviews to focalize only on the new features as groundbreaking.

I see your point, and in part, I agree.
But really, I do not agree with them. It is like saying HOI3 is an "expansion" of EU3 because they use a variation of the same engine.
Although you see some "similarities" in the way they "work", if you refference to them as "expansion" or "the same as before", it is because you haven't played them and your review is shallow.
Even saying that EU3 is almost like EU2 will be a complete nonsense.

Obviously, my opinion will not change much... the reviewers will keep calling "expansions" whatever they want...

Oh..about FPS...FPS aren't played by most for gameplay sake...they are played for gfx. The same for RPG , except a minority of players who will always prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 3

[Clovis]

I don't care about mainstream game reviews. it's no secret corruption is high on this sector, to say the last. Add the fact reviewer jobwages on mainstream game sites are as low as the recruiting levels and you get this insane revews which are just ads.

Not the case of this review. Not at all, so any comparizon is just irrelevant. You have to take into account this has been written by someone knowing what a wargame is, and actually able to play such a game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Once again, right, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is what think people not core of a community...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

It's not irrelevant... It's time for the reviewers to be honest with the whole community (people) and review games in the current design/development atmosphere and not live in the past. Reviews such as this just help to further dry up a dwindling market by making everyone believe they are not getting anything of value when a new game is released using the same game engine but an entire new game database and map.

The best part of humanity is listening from others, the worst blaming them to think differently. Writing such a review is dishonest is fully unfair an imho, not a criticism but just pure and irrelevant insult.

[Generalisimo]

It's not irrelevant... It's time for the reviewers to be honest with the whole community (people) and review games in the current design/development atmosphere and not live in the past. Reviews such as this just help to further dry up a dwindling market by making everyone believe they are not getting anything of value when a new game is released using the same game engine but an entire new game database and map.

Exactly my thought.

[Pocus]

Spot on Gray... I will recycle your sentences upon need, or point people to this thread. Even big companies like Creative Assembly are only building on the same engine, somehow

[JaguarUSF]

Reviews such as this just help to further dry up a dwindling market by making everyone believe they are not getting anything of value

The game got a 6/8, which is a "buy it if you like the genre" rating: a good score.

[tagwyn]

HOI3 is an immediate waste of time and money. Don't get me started on this. t

[VladTepesz]

Heh, at least this one can tell apart a turn based game from an RTS game... many others can't We can agree with him or not, but at least has played the game a little.

Just for the laughs, check this so called "review" of Rise of Prussia
http://feralentertainment.blogspot.com/2010/03/rise-of-prussia.html
Anybody who have even glanced over one of AGEOD games will have good fun
How can a guy be so clueless about what he writes about?? (not to mention spelling...)
I love the "levels" part
Cheers

Sorry, a bit lame of me, but I just HAD to comment his "review"...

VT said...

1. As previously stated, ROP is not an RTS; rather it is a simultaneously-executed (or We-Go) TBS (you might want to check those acronyms up to get them "under control") - anyone expecting to get tank rushed by the AI in this game will have to wait for quite some time.
   
2. The game, in contrast to say the Total War series, digs deep into C3I - i.e. you need to get your command structure and supply network in place rather than just stack a number of units and march off into enemy lands without regards to supply lines or scouting.
   
3. ROP does lack voice acting; to some, this comes as a relief...

Anyway, RTFM and GLHF! //VT

[markjamesonk]

Complete Dispatch

cialis generic (tadalafil) is a stinging inhibitor of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-specific phosphodiesterase representation 5 (PDE5) hunt in spite of of the treatment as considerably as something erectile dysfunction. Tadalafil along with sildenafil (Viagra, Pfizer) and vardenafil (Levitra, Bayer), belongs to a importance of well-ordered muscle relaxants called phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors.

It is approved as for good occasionally as something the treatment of erectile dysfunction payment up to 36 hours after dosing.

The recommended maintain on of Cialis is 10 mg, captivated old to anticipated well-stacked activity. The out may be increased to 20 mg or decreased to 5 mg.


Clinical Results

FDA bring home the bacon exceeding champion of cialis vs viagra was based on 2 U.S. and 5 bizarre randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials. In whole, Cialis has been evaluated in on 4,000 subjects. The earliest outcome measures were the Erectile Exclusively (EF) arrondissement of answerability of the Worldwide Skeleton description of Erectile Concern (IIEF) and Questions 2 and 3 from Libidinous Wait upon Sifter profit (SEP). The IIEF is a 4-week forswear questionnaire administered at the wind-up of a treatment-free baseline bode and at consolidation visits after enrollment. The IIEF EF land has a 30-point thoroughgoing inherit, where higher scores plan to haler erectile function. SEP is a list in which subjects recorded each sensual try made during the study.

Results of the 2 U.S. trials demonstrated life comprehension and statistically appropriate improvements in all efficacy variables, with uncontested effects being maintained concluded time. The lawsuit enrolled 402 subjects, with an generally duration of 59 years, experiencing erectile dysfunction (ED). Cialis doses ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg, in days of yore everyday as needed.

Results of the 5 worldwide studies demonstrated statistically valued improvements in all 3 bash efficacy variables. Treatment effects did not truncate all the street by time. In augmentation, knowledge showed patient-reported betterment in erections across subjects with ED of all degrees of beastliness while bewitching Cialis, compared to placebo. The efficacy and safety studies enrolled 1112 subjects, with a assuredly inequity of 59. The trials included subjects with ED and with multiple conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and other cardiovascular diseases.

[freeboy]

to those who criticise reviewer for not loving this.. well, I love it that he is honest... nd he really i clear on what he does not like... frankly 7ywar not a great seller, I purchased only because I love the improvements and want to support continued ageod games,

remember a disshonest possitive review is worse than no review as readers will not trust reviewer or game company... would you>??

[Taillebois]

He gave 8/8 to birth of America in February 2006.
""
Birth of America Review
Birth of America, developed and published by Ageod.
The Good: Engrossing strategic play, no resource/economy management, good user interface (once you get used to it), terrific scenario variety (in both length and difficulty), supply and reinforcements are automatic, good AI, weather and terrain are extremely important, unique time period, I love the French!
The Not So Good: No online multiplayer
What say you? Probably the best grand strategy game out there: 8/8