| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (60)

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:09PM Themoreyouknow said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Why do companies come up with names like this? (R.U.S.E.) With that type of name you're setting up yourself for failure and guaranteeing everyone will have an effortless time making fun of your name and its suckage.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:09PM Ezio Auditore da Firenze said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I... I'm not surprised.

Everything about this game since it's announcement has screamed 'dull' at me.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:15PM Picasotriggerfish said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Ezio Auditore da Firenze - The early trailer that featured the two guys sitting in a booth with an interactive map reminded me of Battleship.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:22PM Indefinite Implosion said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Ezio Auditore da Firenze
Nor am I; though I was excited about how it would be as a Move title due to that different control scheme...
Unfortunately they apparently didn't want the reviewers to know what the Move version is like, which doesn't exactly instill me with confidence in it...
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 7:56PM KinseySS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Indefinite Implosion

Well I believe the RUSE demo for PS3 has Move support.

Doesn't Joystiq have a Move controller they can try the demo with?
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:10PM SpiderMike said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A very R.U.S.E.ful review. :-D

Bit of a shame, as I enjoyed the demo, to a point. It was rather cumbersome and slow though so I see where you're coming from.

I might get this at budget, simply to capitalise on the motion control aspect of it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:17PM SpiderMike said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@HardBoiled2009 I wondered whether I had made a mistake. Your comment refilled my confidence in my awful sense of humour. lol.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:10PM Colin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, at least the 'Stiq got a lot of ruse puns out of it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:16PM xYOSSARIANx said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
"I checked the Options at least a dozen times to make sure there wasn't a "OMG, move faster" button"

Actually there is................it's called the 'Blitzkrieg' Ruse. Units travel much faster when using it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:51PM Swizzler said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@xYOSSARIANx I think he was talking about the game pace, for everyone, for quicker-paced games.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:52PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@xYOSSARIANx

He said he used it, in the review. That's not the point. It shouldn't be a special ability to move at a decent rate. There was no "speed up time" or .. I donno... RUN button. Which is his point. Which makes the game unbearable.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:56PM Uncontrol said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@xYOSSARIANx If you'd bothered to read the full review, she mentioned this already.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:22PM Doos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I dunno.. Played the demo 4 times.. twice on easy to get the hang of 'er, then again on the mid. difficulty and again on the hardest...

Loved it.

But.. I see what you're saying about all the menus popping up all the time and hand holding. That's prevalent in the demo, I figured that was just the demo though..

There is a MP mode to this game is there not? I'd assume that's where the real meat of the game lies... without all the hand holding and such.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:29PM PR0F3TA said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
i wasnt even interested in the first place... so no loss here
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:30PM PlayboyX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Aw.. i was looking forward to this. should have just ignored it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:44PM einhanderkiller said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Other reviews are saying it's a pretty good game. The scores are around 8 out of 10.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 10:43PM MAINEiac4434 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PlayboyX Me too. I really need to stop getting my hopes up about games.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:44PM MarkcusD said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The game is getting great reviews everwhere else-check eurogamer.net.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:45PM Curtis17 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"But Meghan!..."

Welcome to Joystiq; Meghan! I believe this is your first on "The 'Stiq". Congrats, hopefully a first of many.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:51PM MrAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Curtis17

Freelancer, so she may do some more but not really part of the team.

Which is a shame because it's a total Brodeo.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:46PM Saria the Cat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nice to see a female voice on the 'Stiq, especially when it is an articulate, eloquent one. :)
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 1:34AM Deozaan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Saria the Cat

Yeah, it's cool and all, but her writing style "sounded" the same to me as anyone else's on Joystiq. If she hadn't said her own name in the review I would have just assumed it was David Hinkle writing it.

Not that there's anything wrong with anyone's style here on Joystiq. I just find it an odd thing to complement Meghan for when it seemed so much the same to everything else here.

Of course, I may have just assumed it was David Hinkle writing it so I read it as something he wrote, thus I interpreted it that way. I dunno.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 3:49PM Osnaz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"campaign drags you through several snail-paced battles on the largest maps known to man"

I don't think you've ever played Supreme Commander
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:00PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Osnaz

ETA to send your fleet to the nearest island: 8 minutes

ETA to send your state-of-the-art, superfast fighter jet to the next island: 3 minutes..
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:00PM Chyld989 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Good to see a new face on Joystiq, Meghan. Of course, I disagree with most of your review.

Based solely off the demo I didn't think the game was too slow at all. It was actually nice to be able to have time to react to things rather than leaving your units alone for a second and coming back to find them dead like in so many RTS games.
As for the ruses I only found about half of them useful, but those half I used constantly. The radio silence and decoy ones were especially useful, as was blitzkreig if you want your units to move faster.

Based on the demo I'll want to try it out on 360 and will either get it for that or for PC, but I'll definitely be picking it up.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:42PM samiur666 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Where's the review on the multiplayer section? For an RTS like this I would think that's what the most important section is right?
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:55PM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@samiur666

I really think you're right, these kind of mind-trick tactics are best suited versus a human opponent.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:45PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You buy; you ruse
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:53PM Credge said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Lack of multiplayer review in an RTS?

Well, ok. It's funny because every single thing you said about the game doesn't exist in multiplayer.

Chances are, if an RTS is too slow for you you probably don't understand how the game plays. For example, game speed is a non-issue. Period. This is like complaining about Civ being a long game. Even the shorter games of Civ can take hours.

This game never should have been on consoles.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:58PM WiredKnight said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Billy Taebo Blanks


....I'd say "boring" is definitely a bad thing. "Slow-paced' is more like it, nothing wrong with that. I agree tough, this one seems designed to give you time to be thoughtful and deliberate, more emphasis on actual tactics than on who can build and click on stuff faster.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:03PM 2late2die said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like it just might not be your type of game. It sounds like it's a more deliberate, strategic game that emphasizes positioning, strategy and "outsmarting" the enemy, over simply overwhelming them with numbers and speed; kinda like the anti-Starcraft. In fact, given your comment about the maps being in fact a "gameboards" I would guess that it's part of the idea that it's almost like you're playing a general in a war room who's directing her troops. Hence the more realistic movement speed and area dimensions.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:05PM technician199 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To bad the publisher didn't send a PS3 copy, would have liked to known how the control scheme worked with Move.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:45PM Raniz85 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@technician199
I read a review about the Move somewhere else and that guy said he tried RUSE with the Move and ended up playing it for way longer than he intended to - sounds good to me =)

I'll definitely wait until I've got my Move and try the demo with it before I buy though - I don't think I want to play it with the Sixaxis...

Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 5:19PM warmonk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it sounds like you hated it, and it still gets 3/5?
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 6:04PM lockwoodisbored said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
'Real time, realer boredom'

So then 'reality' is a sliding scale? So like real is neutral, but because their is something realer, what is real? What? I don't even know what I'm saying.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 6:10PM PersianImm0rtal said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This review is completely useless, because it does not review the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE GAME. Multiplayer,


The whole game is based on the multiplayer, and you reviewed the boring Single Player wich is basically a very long tutorial!
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 6:19PM Cryo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its more of a board style RTS, unlike others where your giving a smallish map and right up in the action. Oh well I love RTS' and will probably buy this for my PS3 instead.
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 6:41PM MEGAJIMZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yet i remember HALO WARS got a good review from joystiq last year!! ROFL!

oh dear joystiq think someone got abit confused didn't we!!!!
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 3:19PM MEGAJIMZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ccc

see i enjoyed playing halo wars but my problem is if i was given a choice i'd rather play R.U.S.E for the simple fact it feels less limited by the developers and more "hey you've got some tanks bit of money lets have some fun with this do what you like" not "hey look a big arsed bug thing wanking across the map attack ittttt!!! oh wait lets send some super human shock troopers in and blow the crap outta everything maybe even have some crazy arsed gun ships come in doom the crazy midgets to a early grave! saying all that.. i dont wanna sound like some anti-halo fanboy i just rather kill nazi's hah! infact its the crazy way you make a base on halo wars!!! why would you have it like that?!?! all grouped together?!?! is it 'cause someone jumped on the crazy train abit too early?! who knows i just love R.U.S.E right now maybe getting the full game i'll actually hate it and go back to playing M.A.G lol!
Reply

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 11:38PM Yates said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every time I hear something about this game, I can only think of "You raff, you ruse."
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 6:21AM JesseDeya said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Failed review has failed.

As everyone has pointed out, the multiplayer wasn't reviewed, or even mentioned until the closing paragraph.

"World War II just isn't the biggest thrill anymore, Nazis are overused and the overall package surrounding the gameplay – graphics, story, multiplayer options – is weak at best."

Multiplayer OPTIONS? Really? So you looked at the options, weren't impressed, and just decided not to bother?

I also note that [ED] has commented on the PS3 version, or at least the fact you didn't get a PS3 review copy. Despite that, did it not occur to you to even _mention_ the fact that this is the first RTS in console history to have support for a controller that *may* completely change the way we think about RTS on consoles? Sure, it's 'hinted' at, with the [ED] comments where they are, but how hard would it have been to actually say "The PS3 version of RUSE supports the PS Move, which may prove to be a faster and more accurate controller than the gamepad, but we didn't get the opportunity to try this out for this review"?

That's like missing the fact GT5 or Forza can be played with a wheel.

Having PS Move support in an RTS is a *big deal*, I really hope Joystiq consider amending this review when/if they get the opportunity to test it out
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 6:36AM tabovilla said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Who wrote this review? what is this? oh joystiq, you picked the wrong editor to do this review.

One phrase describes it all: "..the art of deception is just barely enough to keep us less patient folks on board."

Who said RUSE was a game about speed or things moving fast, pow pow! extra power ups etc? its a STRATEGY game! By this measure the author of this review would have graded Civilization series with an -F. Sorry some things cant be as fast as you want, but that is HOW THE GAME IS. If you are getting flanked, attacked, overrun and you are not prepared, your troops are not ready etc., YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, that's how life is, that is what the game tries to portrait, not just randomly spawning tanks out of nowhere.

I've poured well over 200 hours on this game between the multiplayer beta, free weekend, demo, campaign and let me tell you, this is a great multiplayer RTS. Sorry you couldn't catch the basics quick enough, maybe too steep learning curve for you. The problem is, when you come out bashing it on a site for not personally liking it instead of doing an impartial joystiq quality review, it just makes you a bad professional.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 2:39PM JustinMcElroy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey guys. I know a lot of you had the totally legitimate request to see some more thoughts on multiplayer, so I got Meghan to weigh in a little more. Sorry it wasn't in there from the beginning.

Along this same line, I've got Randy checking out the Move implementation since a lot of you seem interested, so we should have a second update by the end of the day.

LYLAS. - J
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 1:23PM MarkcusD said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@JustinMcElroy

If she didn't mention MP in the first review I have to question how much time she spent with it. I feel bad for Eugen and people who will pass on the game based on this review--they deserved better.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 3:20PM MEGAJIMZ said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
aha also the last two games sucked arse i don't think they could stand the shame of one more half arsed fail!!!
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 5:51PM DaRiste1 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This review is terrible.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2010 9:43PM ALarmclock said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Bullshit. Ubisoft obviously hasn't paid for the review for it to receive a low rating. Videogame journalists are corrupt as hell these days.
Meghan, you seem very intent on exaggerating how "slow" the game is. But there's much more to the game. If you don't know what "different", which is one of RUSE's "key features", it means that the gameplay is different. The gameplay is slower for a reason. Why would the developers make it slower when unit speed can easily be altered?

RUSE is for strategists, not twitch gamers who just like to click stuff really fast. If you can't fathom this concept, I don't think you're fit for this review. Also, you seem to have missed the multiplayer portion entirely, which is what DEFINES an RTS. No one plays it for the story. Especially RUSE. If you know anything about the game, which I believe is a given for a reviewer who's writing about it, you should know that the single-player portion is only the tutorial section of the game. Thus, it must teach you the basics of the game, which calls for the "lessons", although I'd hesitate to say there are hours of it.

And no, you don't need to be anywhere near a "perfect strategist with perfect timing". RUSE is the only RTS game I've ever played, and with clocking only a dozen or so hours in the beta, I don't seem to meet any of the problems that is frustrating you so much.

All in all, I believe you haven't even understood the "art of deception" to review it. And you've only stated a few of the differences it has with other RTS's but exaggerated it to the point that it seems negative.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 3:41AM lucidguy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This review is complete nonsense filled with eye-rolling hyperboles and uninformed bitterness, while obviously being written by someone with no interest in playing the game that RUSE is striving to be.

First of all. This is a multiplayer game at heart, yet little to no attention was given to the multiplayer.

The game is actually not slow at all. If you bothered to zoom all the way in, you may have noticed that the units are not drawn to scale when zoomed out. On closer inspection, you may have gained a greater appreciation for the large distances units have to travel in order to get around the large and detailed maps never before seen in an RTS. You will also notice the great speed at which units are traversing the terrain when viewed at proper scale compared to what you would realistically expect. Regardless, most matches take between 20-40 mins, which is pretty average anyways.

Again this entire review is nothing but useless rhetoric written by someone who apparently lacks journalistic professionalism. It should be struck down, and rewritten by someone more competent and understanding of the genre and game mechanics.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 3:59AM Fellblade said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Awesome update there to cover the multiplayer; "Similar qualms are represented in the multiplayer". Any particular reason that it won't "captivate its niche audience for long"?

The review of a slow-paced game appears to have been given to someone who can't stand slow paced games. This might not be the best idea?
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 7:56AM Piscatorcompos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Strange review and the main issue is the slow pace? Somebody likes hectic clicking RTS! And it seems the reviewer lacked the cortical skills to master the game. For me a slow pace but critical decision making and planning ahead are what make a great strategy game. This reviewer obviously considers Hearts of Iron as too complex. R.U.S.E.'s controls too complex? I find them very easy and approachable.
I think the person reviewing was not a good choice..."I am incapable and therefore the game is not that good!"
LOL
Definitely a game for me then...I like to plan ahead and receive time to do so!
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW