Join our Discord to chat with fellow friendly gamers and our knowledgeable contributors!

User Reviews

There are no reviews for this game.

Our Users Say

Category Description User Score
AI How smart (or dumb) you perceive the game's artificial intelligence to be 3.2
Gameplay How well the game mechanics work (player controls, game action, interface, etc.) 2.9
Graphics The quality of the art, or the quality/speed of the drawing routines 3.4
Personal Slant How much you personally like the game, regardless of other attributes 3.6
Sound / Music The quality of the sound effects and/or music composition 2.9
Story / Presentation The main creative ideas in the game and how well they're executed
(required for every game entry that isn't a compilation or special edition)
Overall User Score (8 votes) 3.1

Critic Reviews

MobyRanks are listed below. You can read here for more information about MobyRank.
PC Gamer (Mar, 1999) lives up to its name. It's a remarkably subtle game that throws a sinister curve at every other tycoon game on the market.
Game Revolution (Mar 01, 1999)
For players who have fantasies of building a software empire from scratch, this is the game for you. But remember: You don't need ethics, just greed, an ego, and a few wicked instincts. In the end, the only thing anyone will remember is who comes out on top.
GameGenie (1998) is a slick, creative, and cool game that is a lot of fun to play. The strategy is complex and very vicious at times, which is a very nice, and the huge amount of things to do keeps the game going even after several hours of play. The graphics and sounds are creative, artistic and are generally pretty nice looking and sounding. All of the available options really help to make this a quality game which I recommend to any strategy enthusiast, and even those people who may not like strategy that much. The bottom line is that this game was done real good.
Power Play (Feb, 1999)
Rein optisch macht das Spiel nicht viel her, aber unter der kargen Schale ist es doch ziemlich oho! Die Beschränkung auf wenige Befehle pro Zug sorgt für Schnelligkeit, die Szenarien besitzen wegen der unterschiedlichen Ausgangspositionen und der enormen Menge an Möglichkeiten einen hohen Wiederspielwert, was ihre geringe Anzahl in milderem Licht erscheinen läßt. Und wer da glaubt, man müsse nur erstmal die Oberhand gewinnen, damit anschließend alles wie geschmiert laufe. der irrt sich gewaltig: Ein einziger unerwarteter Zug der Gegner kann die Situation grundlegend ändern — und gegen alle Eventualitäten kann man sich kaum absichern! Natürlich hebt gerade hier eine Multiplayer-Partie besonders die Laune. allerdings bleibt der Spaß doch weitgehend auf Leute beschränkt, die über ein örtliches Netzwerk verfügen. Für Internet-Spiele benötigt man nämlich die IP-Nummer des Hosts bzw. die Vermittlung durch Dienste wie Mplayer, was auch nicht so ganz ohne Haken und Ösen funktioniert...
GameSpot (Jan 27, 1999)
But in the end, it's the value that counts, and that's where the gaming dollar is considered most sacred. If had given more bang for the buck, it could have been a contender. But with such limited gameplay, it's good for little more than a weekend's worth of entertainment.
RUTHLESS.COM really could have used better audio and visual feedback because, while it’s certainly interesting, it’s also as painfully dry as a badly mixed martini, No question you’ll feel the kick, but you’ll also likely have trouble getting your friends to join you in a libation. That’s a real shame, since this game deserves to be played. Maybe with RUTHLESS.COM II Red Storm will have a budget somewhere near what CEO Tom Clancy gets for one of his novels.
Most of the complaints are based on limited experience with the game. Clearly, if you invest the time to learn the intricacies well enough to compete on the more advanced levels, you're likely to enjoy it more. However, the manual points out that once you've mastered gameplay, the scenarios shouldn't take you longer than an hour to complete. That said, you're not getting very much for your money unless you can make your campaign games last.
IGN (Jan 19, 1999)
In the end, provided me with a brief distraction for a couple of days. This turns out to be one of those titles that, while structurally sound, just doesn't do anything to set itself in front of the herd. Still, if you have a low capability system or you're willing to wait until the game hits the bargain bins there's some entertainment value to be gleaned from this title.
50 is a game that is simple to play, but very frustrating. The rules are easy to pick up, but using them effectively requires more luck than I like to see necessary in a strategy game. It doesn't matter how smart you play; your choices have to directly counter what your opponents are doing in order to be useful. Bottom Line: Easy to learn, impossible to master - a very "smart" game. Many offensive and defensive options, but impossible to control them all. The game requires too much luck.
Unser Martin ist eingefleischter Tom-Clancy-Fan, aber selbst er wollte mit dieser Wirtschaftssimulation nichts zu tun haben, für die der Erfolgsautor immerhin mit seinem Namen wirbt. Zugegeben, die abstrakte Visualisierung wirtschaftlicher Vorgänge hat einen gewissen Reiz, auch wenn alles zunächst wie ein hochkomplexes Brettspiel wirkt. Leider wird man sowohl vom unzureichenden Handbuch als auch von der Benutzerführung ziemlich hängengelassen und braucht viele Stunden, bis man erste Erfolge erringt.
PC Joker (Feb, 1999)
Kurzum, trotz des jeweils in drei Stufen für Spieler- und Gegner-KI einstellbaren Schwierigkeitsgrades sollte Otto Normalzocker die Finger von dem Teil lassen. Hardcore-Freaks könnten dagegen zumindest im Multiplayermodus ihren Spaß an der virtuellen Marktwirtschaft vom Bestsellerautor haben.
GameStar (Germany) (Mar, 1999) will komplexe Wirtschaftsvorgänge simulieren, scheitert aber am eintönigen Spielprinzip und der lachhaften Präsentation. Allenfalls für BWL-Studenten interessant – aber die sollten ja wissen, wo man zuerst spart.