Rise of Nations PC

User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 262 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 3 out of 262
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Apr 18, 2012
    5
    Bland and generic feeling. Too arcade. The civs are not unique enough, and south american civs are not supposed to have gunpowder troops in the middle ages! I came from having played AgeofEmpires2, cossacks & American Conquest. This is not a bad game, but I felt mildly disappointed.
  2. WarwickA.
    Jun 3, 2003
    6
    This game should be called Age of Empires 2.1. It is so much like the age games it is almost impossible to tell them apart(until you get tanks). Claiming this game was Civ gone RTS is an exaggeration at best, and nigh on false advertising at worse. The strategy map is straight from Dune and gives the game the illusion of some RTS elements. Overall, this game is at best a slight This game should be called Age of Empires 2.1. It is so much like the age games it is almost impossible to tell them apart(until you get tanks). Claiming this game was Civ gone RTS is an exaggeration at best, and nigh on false advertising at worse. The strategy map is straight from Dune and gives the game the illusion of some RTS elements. Overall, this game is at best a slight improvement on your standard RTS and should be avoided by all but the most zelous clickfest gamers. Expand
  3. SamerK.
    Jun 4, 2003
    7
    Having spent many a sleepless night feeding my Civilization3 addiction, I was excited about Ron thinking that it is the next step forward in Civ-type games. After playing it for a while I realized that, while it is a good game, it is less successful as a 'model' of history or historical development than Civ3 is, which is the major thing that attracted me to the Civ game.
  4. Mar 26, 2016
    7
    I don't remember the last time I was so thoroughly dumbfounded by the majority opinion. If you enjoy Warcraft, Civilization, Age of Empires and Command and Conquer, how can you possibly find Rise of Nations particularly engaging or nuanced? In short, its quite dull and uninspired. No, its not dull in the sense that I, "don't understand what is happening on-screen." Its dull in the,I don't remember the last time I was so thoroughly dumbfounded by the majority opinion. If you enjoy Warcraft, Civilization, Age of Empires and Command and Conquer, how can you possibly find Rise of Nations particularly engaging or nuanced? In short, its quite dull and uninspired. No, its not dull in the sense that I, "don't understand what is happening on-screen." Its dull in the, "I've seen this before and its not doing anything for me." I've played the game for years to be honest, infrequently, but I've yet to be anything but astonishingly bored out of my mind whilst playing. Perhaps I missed the wagon train here, but I can't understand how my waiting for infinite supplies to amass so that I may purchase various incremental upgrades for my city or build up my army is even remotely entertaining. As far back as I remember, resources were the epicenter of fights, battles, entire defense lines, but here they are endless and aside from the merchant bonuses, are protected by your national borderline. Giving this gameplay a strange sort of similarity to something as archaic as "Black and white." In Rise of Nations you are tasked with essentially "out expanding" your opponent. Military battles are important of course, but if you have more cities, you'll generally win (much like Civilization). The combat is not complicated, it doesn't have much variety to it, and generally animations are quite silly when compared to its spiritual successor, "Rise of Legends." However, the aesthetics are quite charming and they have aged well in terms of the games art style. The game does feature a high quality soundtrack with well orchestrated pieces that match the pace of the gameplay in most cases, however what is curiously lacking is actual personality or dialogue from your units. Scout units have a "dog barking" noise whenever they are issued a command and most military units simply have a "sound of feet marching" noise when issued a command. Its pretty surprising that Big Huge opted to have a game showcasing many different cultures and hardly makes them play all that different from each other either. I was certainly surprised that aside from a few unit re-skins, the only other distinguishing feature from civilization to civilization were random bonuses arbitrarily given to each respective "race." overall I feel that the game is overrated. I enjoyed parts of it, but feel that the sequel does everything much better and is a much faster paced affair as well. Its odd to think that so many people would have fond memories and opinions of this title, but at the same time I suspect it may have been one of the first real time strategy games they ever played. Expand
Metascore
89

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 30
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 30
  3. Negative: 0 out of 30
  1. There is a lot to be said for the city-centric game design, the intricate unit balancing, the smart AI, and the catchy, quickie action, although there isn’t anything here to make the jaded sit up and shout.
  2. GMR Magazine
    80
    Playing Rise of Nations won't make your jaw drop in amazement, but you'll probably still have lots of fun as long as you like RTS games. [Aug 2003, p.74]
  3. The second, more significant disappoint that RON inflicts upon the gamer is the mind numbing singularity of the conquest battles. As much as I love toasting the opposition into roasted marshmallow oblivion, doing so 22 times in a row gets a little old.