Judgement101 Reviews-R.U.S.E

[Judgement101]

This is my first review so please be constructive with your critisism. Ok, lets get started.

[HEADING=3]R.U.S.E[/HEADING]
Systems: PC, Xbox 360, Playstation 3
Developer: Ubisoft

[HEADING=2]Overview:[/HEADING]R.U.S.E is what you would probably come to expect from an RTS now. It has resource gathering, unit production, base building, ect. Where R.U.S.E shines is in it's strategy aspect. You can actually trick your opponent with fake armies, fake bases, and even hide your own base. But, overall, it's pretty simple.

[HEADING=2]Graphics:[/HEADING] For an RTS the graphics are pretty good but in general they won't impress anyone. R.U.S.E uses a new engine that makes the zoom in and out feel more natural but it sacrifices the graphics for it but I'm glad they did so.

But again, for a RTS I think it would probably be one of the better graphic engines. But who plays RTSs for graphics anyway. With the graphics being like this there is very little lag or latency issues when playing in single player but if your PC doesn't meet the standards it will lag like hell.

[HEADING=2]Gameplay:[/HEADING] This is where R.U.S.E is great. It has deep gameplay that really makes you consider your moves before you actually make them. Added to that you get Ruses that give you the ability to trick your enemies into traps or ambushes. But there is one issue, and it's a big one. Inbalanced. Some teams have aircraft that AA does nearly nothing against. This makes bomber spamming a very depressing reality. If you are playing online for the first time, prepare for a hailstorm of bombers. Artillery is another big issue. For some weird reason the USSR's only defense is artillery, over powered, artillery. If you try to move infantry with 10 miles of the USSR base prepare for a bloodbath and massive casulties.

If you can overlook the inbalances I think you'll find the game to be rewarding and extremely fun. The maps range from really tiny to massive. One map looks like it could be about 300 miles which makes it annoying to move slow artillery units across the map. But, while this was a downside to me, others may find it to be an attracting feature.

[HEADING=2]Multiplayer:[/HEADING]R.U.S.E has an interesting multiplayer feature. It's level based. Depending on how well you beat your last enemy is how much XP you will earn. It is score based where everything has a fixed value of points you earn if you destory it. While this seems like a good idea, it ultimately fails. Some buildings that have low resistance to attacks are worth a rediciuloius amount of points while others with high defenses are worth almost nothing.

With this issue people can level up really fast or really slow based on how the other person is playing. One feature that I found worked was the victory system. The XP you earn will be based on your victory type. There are three; Minor (your score is 10% higher than your enemy's), Tie (Scores within 5% of eachother), and Total (your score is 70% higher). This makes it better to actually target enemy units instead of base rushing.


[HEADING=2]Score:[/HEADING]Overall, I think R.U.S.E is good for its genre and it fun to play. So I give it a:
[HEADING=2]8.5/10[/HEADING]


Please give me feedback on where I could improve or if you want me to write more reviews.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

If you could control soldiers in fp or tp I might actually get it.

 

[Judgement101]

Well, since I'm not getting any feedback I guess I won't do another review :'-(

Dude, the reviews section isn't heavily trafficked. Give it an hour or so, or even longer. I've had reviews that got no posts for hours but when I woke up the next day I had about twenty. Have patience!

As for the review itself, it was slightly short, but well-written in it's shortness. You should try and avoid categorizing each aspect of the game into sections however, as it kind of ruins the flow. It's certainly good enough to have another shot at a review sometime down the line, just try and make it longer next time.

I'm too used to the super posting of "Off-topic" I guess. I'm sorry about the length, I didn't want to suffer from Wall of Text syrndrome.

 

[Judgement101]

If you could control soldiers in fp or tp I might actually get it.

It's just standard RTS, you can't assume direct control. I heard Raven Squad Hidden Dagger had RTS/FPS action. Too bad that game sucked.

 

[Judgement101]

I'm too used to the super posting of "Off-topic" I guess. I'm sorry about the length, I didn't want to suffer from Wall of Text syrndrome.

There's no need to apologise for it . If you want to avoid 'OMGWALLOFTEXT' but still have a hefty word count, you just need to use pictures and paragraph spacing strategically. At the same time, you don't want to spam the reader with images. Have an opening one and a picture for each aspect you discuss, as you've done here, so there's no need to make major changes to structure.

Thank you for the help, I'm really confused when it comes to writing reviews. (I'm always afraid I'll get yelled at)

 

[Quad08]

While some people like longer reviews, I actually enjoyed that fact that yours was short and really highlighted on what you thought was good/bad about the game.

You might want to add what system you played the game on though, as I'm sure PC users will have a different expirence than Xbox owners

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Judgement101]

Spoiler: Review notes

This is my first review so please be constructive with your critisism. Ok, lets get started.

[HEADING=3]R.U.S.E[/HEADING]
Systems: PC, Xbox 360, Playstation 3
Developer: Ubisoft

image snip

[HEADING=2]Overview:[/HEADING]R.U.S.E is what you would probably come to expect from an RTS now. It has resource gathering, unit production, base building, ect. Where R.U.S.E shines is in its strategy aspect. You can actually trick your opponent with fake armies, fake bases, and even hide your own base. But, overall, it's pretty simple.

Not the worst opening paragraph I've ever seen (and I definitely shouldn't be one to cast stones when it comes to unengaging intros), but it strikes me as rather by-the-numbers. That's alright if your reader finds this piece when already looking for a review of R.U.S.E., but if they just happen upon it in here, there's not really enough to draw them in. And you should strongly consider dropping the checkbox format. I see how it helps organize your thoughts and all that, but optimally your review should flow nicely without having to stop dead and loudly announce "I'm gonna talk about this now".

[HEADING=2]Graphics:[/HEADING] For an RTS the graphics are pretty good but in general they won't impress anyone. R.U.S.E uses a new engine that makes the zoom in and out feel more natural but it sacrifices the graphics for it but I'm glad they did so.

image snip

But again, for a RTS I think it would probably be one of the better graphic engines. But who plays RTSs for graphics anyway. With the graphics being like this there is very little lag or latency issues when playing in single player but if your PC doesn't meet the standards it will lag like hell.

Having some trouble connecting points now, are we? Seriously though, using "but" five times in two, very short, paragraphs is too much. Variety is the spice of life, and writing too. Though, still, nonetheless, even though, despite. Use some of these.

[HEADING=2]Gameplay:[/HEADING] This is where R.U.S.E is great. It has deep gameplay that really makes you consider your moves before you actually make them. Added to that you get Ruses that give you the ability to trick your enemies into traps or ambushes. But there is one issue, and it's a big one. Imbalance. Some teams have aircraft that AA does nearly nothing against. This makes bomber spamming a very depressing reality. If you are playing online for the first time, prepare for a hailstorm of bombers. Artillery is another big issue. For some weird reason the USSR's only defense is artillery, over powered, artillery. If you try to move infantry with 10 miles of the USSR base prepare for a bloodbath and massive casulties.

Okay, even though the last paragraphs had too repetitive conjuctions, at least they had some. This one stutters about with any form of flow immediately broken by a nice full stop.

image snip

If you can overlook the imbalances I think you'll find the game to be rewarding and extremely fun. The maps range from really tiny to massive. One map looks like it could be about 300 miles which makes it annoying to move slow artillery units across the map. But, while this was a downside to me, others may find it to be an attracting feature.

[HEADING=2]Multiplayer:[/HEADING]R.U.S.E has an interesting multiplayer feature. It's level based. Depending on how well you beat your last enemy is how much XP you will earn. It is score based where everything has a fixed value of points you earn if you destory it. While this seems like a good idea, it ultimately fails. Some buildings that have low resistance to attacks are worth a ridiculous amount of points while others with high defenses are worth almost nothing.

image snip

With this issue people can level up really fast or really slow based on how the other person is playing. One feature that I found worked was the victory system. The XP you earn will be based on your victory type. There are three; Minor (your score is 10% higher than your enemy's), Tie (Scores within 5% of eachother), and Total (your score is 70% higher). This makes it better to actually target enemy units instead of base rushing.


[HEADING=2]Score:[/HEADING]Overall, I think R.U.S.E is good for its genre and it fun to play. So I give it a:
[HEADING=2]8.5/10[/HEADING]


Please give me feedback on where I could improve or if you want me to write more reviews.

Greetings Judgement101, and welcome to the User Review section. Down to business, shall we?

Let's start with the praise. Grammarwise there were few to no hiccups, you raise fairly interesting points and seemed to go into this without any form of bias. But, there's a lot of room for improvement.

Firstly, your review is too short. Okay, you have me, that's a subjective quibble. Some people might tell you that this amount of writing is perfectly fine. Those voices usually don't belong to fellow reviewers, but to people who have found your review because they are interested in the subject matter (and hence have already gathered information from various other sources). While I wouldn't go so far as to actually claim that their belief is outright wrong, I doubt that they have a firm grasp of what a review should and shouldn't be (I think I'll better drop this now before I enrage anybody). Anyway, the point is: Depth is your friend. No matter how much attention any game (or book or film) gets from the various reviewers out there (and in here), each single review needs to be fully-functional on its own. Going into your review I should be able to find out everything I need to know in order to decide whether or not I'll like the game. That doesn't mean you need to cover everything in great detail, but you should at least mention it briefly.

Secondly, the checkbox format. If you want my personal (wholly uncalled for) opinion, you need to get rid of it. It's like reviewing with your training wheels still on. It may help organize your review into bite-sized chunks that are seemingly easier for us to read (and you to write), it also breaks flow a great deal. The review effectively stops dead whenever we reach a subheader. Then you have to restart from scratch, only to run into another wall. Ideally your paragraphs and ideas should flow neatly into each other without having to explain the process to us. Much easier to read, but sadly a lot harder to write. Flow is the cause of much distress even for the semi-professional big wigs around this place. Right now don't worry about getting it wrong, just start practicising. Read your paragraphs aloud. If you stagger or stumble, the bit probably needs reworking.

Thirdly, the numerical score. The practice is frowned upon in here for being beside the point. What does a numerical score really add to a review that can't be said through words? Is it important to be able to tell if a review somehow enjoyed Bioshock 0.1 more than he did Oblivion? Again I can't claim that adding a score is wrong, but you should at least consider not repeating this. Instead, sum up your thoughts on the game, along with who you think might enjoy it, in the last paragraph. Add instructions along the lines of Buy, Rent or Pass and bingo, you have a so called "Bottom Line".

Keep these in mind when producing your next review (and I'm hoping we see a next review) and you're on a good road. If you have any other questions or would like more extensive feedback hit me. Until then, keep em coming.

P.S.: No worries about getting yelled at. I think you'll find that serious criticism takes a very gentle form around here.

Thank you for the feedback, I'll definitely use these tips in the future.