R.U.S.E.

 PC
User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 207 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 146 out of 207
  2. Mixed: 42 out of 207
  3. Negative: 19 out of 207
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. Redman_Herring
    Oct 7, 2010
    0
    While the game itself is about average. The fact that you need to be on-line and the servers available launch the game & to play a game against the computer is the biggest downfall of the whole game.
    I have been trying for about an hour to start the game so I can play against the computer but because Stream servers are temporarily unavailable I can't.. This is a big negative to this    While the game itself is about average. The fact that you need to be on-line and the servers available launch the game & to play a game against the computer is the biggest downfall of the whole game.
    I have been trying for about an hour to start the game so I can play against the computer but because Stream servers are temporarily unavailable I can't.. This is a big negative to this game. I would not recommend it to anyone because of this.    … Expand
  2. Dethstar
    Oct 12, 2011
    0
    I dont know how i managed to submit a 10 previously. That certainly was not my intent. For me this was all marketing, hype, and zero delivery in terms of gameplay.
  3. cows
    Sep 9, 2010
    0
    Game is basically unplayable, sure the multiplayer is ok, but half the time 3 outta 5 people drop after 5 mins. and the battles? super slow paced, most defintialy not worth it,
  4. Philc
    Sep 9, 2010
    0
    I've played almost all of the top RTS's to the unknown ones for a long time and well... This just isn't one of them. There's just no micro-management and in a war game, or a game that trys to portray realism... micromanagement, or the soldier, is key to a battle. I'm giving it a 0 because people give it a 10.
  5. I_Am_Turok
    Oct 4, 2012
    4
    Caveat, I have not played this online multiplayer since I disliked the single campaign so much, so I may well be missing the main reason for the high scores elsewhere. It fails as a single player campaign or skirmish game for me. Storyline, WWII, so nothing original there at all to keep the interest. So lazy. The tutorials are built into the campaign, which I really dislike. As theCaveat, I have not played this online multiplayer since I disliked the single campaign so much, so I may well be missing the main reason for the high scores elsewhere. It fails as a single player campaign or skirmish game for me. Storyline, WWII, so nothing original there at all to keep the interest. So lazy. The tutorials are built into the campaign, which I really dislike. As the campaign progresses, you get more options. Seriously, why 5 levels down the road am I now only getting a new unit to use. Why not all options from the outset - if you were serious about keeping it realistic, then give me units that existed at that time? The maps may look 3D with mountains and all, but they are flat in gameplay terms, you can't go over anything, not even into towns. And your units increase in viewing size as you zoom out (until draught type icons for top zoom), so you feel like your moving monsters around, not real size units. Viewing close then far is smooth, but on far your units become draught pieces. Supreme Commander had the same type idea. The problem with that? Well, who are you suppose to be in the game, the unit on the ground fighting, or the commander in HQ looking at a map and moving around pieces of wood for tanks. I just don't like that at all, be one character or the other, and when you choose one, your control over what the other character can do is minimal. And finally, the Ruses, e.g. how is seeing the enemy units a ruse - isn't that what spotter planes do? I just could not get into this game at all, it made me think of Sudden Strike, how good that was and that was 2001. or Panzsers (2004 release) where you cared about the main single unit (usually the captain). Alas, RUSE just didn't have a storyline character to care about, and a look and feel that was smooth but lacking grit.… Expand
  6. FB242
    Feb 14, 2013
    0
    Very crappy game. Slow, unorganized, sloppy HUD, "cute" little mouse-over icons and outlines, god awful voice acting, poor map layout, no sense of scale or management stuck in a "hold-your-hand" and a "look what you can do!" limbo where you never actually get to a manageable point where you are in control... Just buy Company of Heroes...
  7. foxmulhoney
    Jun 25, 2013
    0
    alot of hype for a very bad game, the ad campaign showed it to be a innovative strategy game it defiantly had new things its too bad they were not good things

Awards & Rankings

64
#64 Best PC Game of 2010
37
#37 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
38
#38 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 33 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 33
  3. Negative: 0 out of 33
  1. Absolute Games
    Jan 15, 2011
    67
    If you're still not tired of WWII-themed RTS games, give R.U.S.E. a chance. It's a nice alternative to Order of War, but don't expect it to dethrone Company of Heroes.
    Read full review
  2. PC Format
    Dec 25, 2010
    86
    Appealing to both the single and multiplayer real-time strategist, although R.U.S.E. will be a hard mistress online. [Issue#245, p.102]
  3. Level7.nu
    70
    Ruse is very entertaining both in its campaign and multiplayer mode. Unfortunately the story is not very engaging and feels unnecessary. The depth of the game is what makes it different from the rest of the pack. There are lots of room for clever moves and lengthy battles.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »