What Happened to Rise of Legends?

[Jason]

<strong>[ Interview ]</strong>

<p>Tom Chick sat down with Brian Reynolds of <a href="http://www.bighugegames.com/" target="_blank">Big Huge Games</a> to discuss why <strong><a href="http://www.bighugegames.com/rol.shtml" target="_blank">Rise of Legends</a></strong> didn't turn out to be the grand success that <a href="http://www.bighugegames.com/ron.shtml" target="_blank">Rise of Nations</a> was. One suggestion was the lack familiar hooks (like elves and orcs for a fantasy game) which related back to reason why Alpha Centauri didn't sell as well as Civilization II.</p><blockquote><p>Chick: I sort of a see a parallel with what you did in Alpha Centauri.

Reynolds: Thank you for reminding me of that. Yes, in some sense, we went against the lesson of [our own] history: that you can sell a lot more Civ IIs than you can Alpha Centauris. One reason we did it again anyway is because we did make a good amount of money on Alpha Centauri. We just didn't make truckloads of money like we did with Civ II. So we did it.

But it was a lot harder to explain even the most basic science fiction concepts to people than it was history. Everybody knows what a bow and arrow do. Everybody somewhere back in their genetic programming understands the possible benefits of discovering the wheel. The concept of mathematics doesn't sound very frightening, but then when you get into nonlinear mathematics and special quantum laser gun theory, then -- no matter how socially relevant the biting commentary provided by your game is -- there's still this accessibility issue. You have a lot more work to do to get people into the story.

So you could say that we should have known. </p></blockquote><p>Read the full interview at <a href="http://crispygamer.com/_GeneratedPages/Columns/Column794.aspx" target="_blank">Crispy Gamer</a>. </p><p>Spotted @ <a href="http://crispygamer.com/">Crispy Gamer</a></p>

 

[Oarfish]

Wasn't it more likely because it was a paint by numbers RTS other than the steampunk setting? Though I thought rise of nations was dull too.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Yeah that's what happens. Some shitty developer makes a shitty game which people buy thinking it'll be good only it turns out to be shitty. They then make another even shittier game but this time in a "new and unique setting". The resulting shittiness from their first game and the shittiness inherent in their new game result in shitty sales. The shitty game is then excused of all shittiness and the setting is blamed.

 

[The Dude]

Bullshit, Rise of Nations is one of the few RTS's I've enjoyed in multi, mostly because it didn't tend to turn to silly micromanagement battles and it was innovative for its time. It's arguably one of the most strategic RTS's due to map control being key, attrition and supply, and rudimentary flanking mechanics. While the pretty hard RPS system is retarded, the rest makes up for it. Rise of Legends was mediocre though and a step back as far as the mechanics was concerned.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, Rise of Nations was very popular, I heard a lot about it even almost a year after it was released, and then finally bought it. Rise of Legends, on the other hand... I heard an announcement, saw one or two previews, that's it. I forgot about it, and never even noticed its release.

More publicity godsdammit. Hype is bad, but too less publicity sucks too!

 

[thesheeep]

More publicity godsdammit. Hype is bad, but too less publicity sucks too!

 

[Dmitron]

Why do these monkeys always place AC alongside CIV and describe it as a flop? I know countless people who love AC. The quiet majority? It never gets any sexy in the press.

 

[JarlFrank]

AC is awesome, and Firaxis would like to do a sequel for it. But those fuckers at EA have the rights to it and won't give them away. Shitheads.